New York’s Medical Aid in Dying Act – What Advisors Need to Know

Originally posted in Leimberg’s Estate Planning Newsletter – Archive Message #3264.

The New York Medical Aid in Dying Act (“Act”), was passed by the New York legislature but has not yet been signed by the Governor Kathy Hochul, although she has announced she will sign in January 2026. When signed, this Act will allow terminally ill adults to request life-ending medication from their physician. This will make New York the thirteenth jurisdiction in the U.S. to adopt such “MAID” legislation (Medical Aid-in-Dying). As with similar laws in other states, the Act contains detailed safeguards to prevent abuse, undue influence or a decision that was not well thought out. The law will require patients to make both verbal and written requests, obtain confirmation from consulting physicians that they have a terminal illness expected to cause death within six months, and demonstrate they understand and voluntarily consent to the decision. New York’s version will include a five-day waiting period, mandatory mental health evaluation, and a residency requirement, differing slightly from Oregon’s pioneering 1997 law which now has no residency requirement. This law and its requirements distinguish the decision of a competent adult from properly executed directives (“living wills”) to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatment when such treatment would only artificially prolong imminent death. Living wills and POLST (Provider Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment) do not themselves confer a right to obtain life-ending medication. The requirements outlined in the Act must be met to lawfully grant Medical Aid In Dying.

No matter the religious or philosophical view a practitioner has about such matters, familiarity with the law is essential. Given the increase in the number of states with these types of laws, practitioners in all states should understand them. If the practitioner believes a client may wish to pursue these steps but that the practitioner would not be comfortable advising on them, the practitioner may owe the client the responsibility of referring the client to another attorney who is willing to so advise. If a client who is terminally ill wishes to pursue their right to die but the state in which they reside does not permit what they wish, consideration might be given to changing the client’s residency. But because of the safeguards mentioned above, this may take advance planning which may be difficult or impossible for clients in such extreme circumstances. Again, the earlier practitioners can identify the client’s situation and desires, the sooner that advice can be given to perhaps facilitate the client complying with the hurdles involved.

Estate planners could also consider other implications including accelerated wealth transfers, potential estate tax consequences due to earlier-than-expected deaths, putting the client’s financial and legal affairs in order, etc. For clients in New York, the complex residency rules for clients seeking treatment should be planned for. But residency and similar concepts may be an issue that may affect clients seeking to act under the laws of any state which permits this.

Based on Oregon’s experience where 0.9% of deaths in 2024 resulted from Medical Aid In Dying, planners should anticipate that some terminally ill clients may die sooner than their prognosis suggests, particularly once they enter hospice care.

To read the full article, click here.