to offer the patient a chance to rescind their request. governor chris christie, at the time the bill was going through a legislative review and voting, vowed to veto any bills related to allowing assisted suicide. state senator nicolas scutar introduced the aid in dying for the terminally ill act in january 2018. the bill was passed on the state assembly on march 25, 2019, and it was signed by governor phil murphy on april 12, 2019, making new jersey the 7th state to legalize assisted suicide. the law went into effect on august 1, 2019. new mexico in january 2014, it seemed as though new mexico had inched closer to being the fifth state in the united states to legalize physician-assisted suicide via a court ruling. "this court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a new mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying," wrote judge nan g. nash of the second district court in albuquerque. this decision was overturned on 11 august 2015 by the new mexico court of appeals, in a 2–1 ruling. the court gave the verdict: "we conclude that aid in dying is not a fundamental liberty interest under the new mexico constitution". on april 8, 2021, governor michelle lujan grisham signed the elizabeth whitefield end-of-life options act into law after the bill passed the new mexico legislature, legalizing assisted suicide in the state. the law allows for terminally ill patients with six months or less to live to request lethal medication. two medical experts are required to agree on the patient's diagnosis and the patient must pass a mental competency screening in order to receive lethal medication. there is a 48-hour waiting period, after which the patient must take the medication themselves. the law took effect on june 18, 2021. oregon oregon voters first approved the death with dignity act (dwda) by general election in november 1994 by a margin of 51% to 49%. ballot measure 16, a citizen initiative sponsored by oregon right to die political action committee, asked if terminally ill patients with less than six months to live should be able to receive a prescription for lethal drugs and included many provisions to protect against misuse, such as two oral requests and a written request from the patient. the patient must also be referred to counseling if a mental illness is suspected. the law went into effect in october 1997 after an injunction delayed implementation. in november 1997, measure 51 was placed on the general election ballot to repeal the act. voters chose to retain the act by a margin of 60% to 40%. data from the oregon health authority, which publishes annual reports on the state's first-in-the-nation assisted death law, show that approximately two-thirds of patients who receive prescriptions for lethal drugs take them. oregon requires a physician to prescribe drugs and they must be self-administered. in order to be eligible, the patient must be diagnosed by an attending physician as well as by a consulting physician, with a terminal illness that will cause the death of the individual within six months. the law states that, in order to participate, a patient must be: 1) 18 years of age or older, 2) a resident of oregon, 3) capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself, and 4) diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six months. it is up to the attending physician to determine whether these criteria have been met. it is required the patient orally request the medication at least twice and contribute at least one (1) written request. the physician must notify the patient of alternatives; such as palliative care, hospice and pain management. lastly the physician is to request but not require the patient to notify their next of kin that they are requesting a prescription for a lethal dose of medication. assuming all guidelines are met and the patient is deemed competent and completely sure they wish to end their life, the physician will prescribe the drugs. as of 2013, a total of 1,173 people had dwda prescriptions written and 752 patients had died from ingesting drugs prescribed under the dwda. in 2013, there were approximately 22 assisted deaths per 10,000 total deaths in oregon. lee v. state of oregon in december 1994, doctors and patients argued that the dwda violated the u.s. constitution's first and fourteenth amendments in lee v. oregon. u.s. district court judge michael hogan placed a temporary injunction, that he later made permanent, on the act. in february 1997, the ninth circuit court of appeals ruled to dismiss the challenge to the death with dignity act. measure 51, oregon repeal of death with dignity in 1997, measure 51 was placed on the november ballot. it failed, and 60% of oregon voters, more than the original 1994 vote, expressed their support for the death with dignity act. oregon v. ashcroft u.s. attorney general john ashcroft issued a directive in 2001 to prevent the oregon death with dignity act from being implemented. the state of oregon successfully sued and proceeded with implementation. vermont in may 2013, the vermont legislature passed the patient choice and control at end of life act. governor peter shumlin signed it into law. the law is based on, but is less restrictive than, the oregon model. vermont was the first state to pass an assisted death law through the legislative process. in january 2013 the act was introduced to the senate, and in may 2013 it was passed by both the house and senate. vermont residents 18 years old or older who are mentally capable adults with a terminal illness and a prognosis of six months or less to live can make an oral request and obtain a lethal dose of medication from a physician to hasten their death. the bill requires a second opinion, written and oral requests, and other provisions. in august 2022, a connecticut resident with end-stage cancer sued vermont to invalide the law's residency requirement for medical aid-in-dying, arguing that it was unconstitutional. vermont settled the case by removing the non-resident requirement, becoming the first state to allow doctors to prescribe lethal medication to non-residents. washington in washington, physician-assisted suicide did not become legal until 2008. in 1991, a ballot question asked if terminally ill adults should be allowed to receive physician aid-in-dying. the initiative failed, receiving 46 percent of the vote. in 1997, four washington physicians and three terminally ill patients brought forth a lawsuit that would challenge the ban on medical aid in dying that was in place at the time. this lawsuit was first part of a district court hearing, where it ruled in favor of glucksberg, which was the group of physicians and terminally ill patients. the lawsuit was then affirmed by the ninth circuit. thus, it was taken to the supreme court, and there the supreme court decided to grant washington certiorari. eventually, the supreme court decided, with a unanimous vote, that medical aid in dying was not a protected right under the constitution as of the time of this case. washington voters approved the death with dignity act by general election in november 2008 by a margin of 58% to 42%. the ballot summary read: "this measure would permit terminally ill, competent, adult washington residents medically predicted to die within six months to request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician. the measure requires two oral and one written request, two physicians to diagnose the patient and determine the patient is competent, a waiting period, and physician verification of an informed patient decision. physicians, patients, and others acting in good faith compliance would have criminal and civil immunity." washington's rules and restrictions are similar, if not exactly the same, as oregon's. not only does the patient have to meet the above criteria, they also have to be examined by not one, but two doctors licensed in their state of residence. both doctors must come to the same conclusion about the patient's prognosis. if one doctor does not see the patient fit for the prescription, then the patient must undergo psychological inspection to tell whether or not the patient is in fact capable and mentally fit to make the decision of assisted death or not. other jurisdictions alaska in 1999, two terminally ill patients, kevin sampson and jane doe, sued for an order to exempt their physicians from being charged with manslaughter for assisting them in dying. the superior court ruled against them, and they appealed to the alaska supreme court. this court upheld the previous ruling with the reasoning that the alaska constitution's right to privacy and liberty does not allow terminally ill patients to be assisted by physicians in dying. more recently, representative harriet drummond (d-anchorage) has twice introduced legislation to legalize physician assisted suicide: first in 2015 and again in 2017. in each case, the act was heard in the house health & social services committee, then was rolled over to the session for the subsequent year. in 2018, the house health & social services committee passed the bill 3 to 2, with 2 abstentions, sending it to the judiciary committee, where it stalled again. arizona arizona's state legislature has heard bills to legalize physician assisted suicide and patient-controlled pain medication dosing numerous times since 2003. each year from 2017 to 2020, companion bills for assisted suicide were simultaneously introduced in the house and senate, but failed to advance. in 2017, the legislature passed a related law, sb 1439, prohibition on discrimination against health care entities, which prohibits discrimination against medical care providers who opt out of providing assistance in dying, should such care ever be legalized. it was subsequently signed by the governor on march 24, 2017. in arizona, the city of bisbee became the first municipality in the state to approve an aid in dying resolution, although the vote is not legally binding. the resolution states that the city of bisbee: respects the diversity of perspectives of its citizens, supports equal protection within the diversity of perspectives on end-of-life decisions, recognizes the practice of aid in dying as a legitimate individual liberty, and, while not a legally enforceable document, urges prosecutorial discretion by the cochise county attorney in de-prioritizing cases involving prosecution of a person who has supported, been present, or facilitated a loved one to advance the time of his or her imminent death when facing intolerable suffering. connecticut legislation to legalize assisted suicide was first introduced in connecticut in 1995, when oregon considered its own policy. similar bills have had a public hearing in seven of the last eight years (2013-2020, excepting 2016), but they consistently died in committee without coming to a vote. hb-06425, an act concerning aid in dying for terminally ill patients, was evaluated by the connecticut public health committee march 5, 2021 with a 24–9 vote to send to the assembly floor, however was then referred to the judiciary committee and subsequently tabled. florida krischer v. mciver was a case brought to the florida supreme court in 1997 by the florida chapter of the hemlock society in an attempt to overturn the state's anti-assisted suicide law. the question was if aids patient charles hall had this right, and the case was appealed to the florida supreme court. this court upheld the constitutionality of florida's law against assisted suicide. in 2020, state senator kevin rader (d-29) introduced the first ever florida bill to legalize physician assisted suicide, sb 1800, the florida death with dignity act. the bill was indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration on march 14, 2020. maryland the maryland legislature has considered and rejected bills on physician-assisted death many times, beginning in 1995. from 2015 to 2017, an end of life option act was introduced each year, but each year withdrawn without a vote. in 2019, the reintroduced act was brought to a vote. it passed the house 74–66, but failed in the senate with a tie 23–23. in 2020, the act was once again introduced but subsequently set aside due to the covid-19 pandemic. governor larry hogan, whose term in office ended in 2023, has suggested in the past that he would oppose the legislation, but indicated in 2020