CHICAGO — A coalition of Illinois physicians, a Roman Catholic bishop, and a faith-based nursing home filed a federal lawsuit in Chicago challenging the state’s newly enacted “End-of-Life Options” Act (EOLO). The statute, which is set to take effect on September 12, legalizes physician-assisted suicide while requiring objecting healthcare professionals and institutions to promote its benefits, issue referrals, and alter death certificates.
The plaintiffs, represented by the Thomas More Society, argue that the law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and federal funding restrictions. The lawsuit names Mario Treto, Jr., Secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, and Sameer Vohra, Director of the Illinois Department of Public Health, as defendants in their official capacities.
A Direct Clash Over Conscience and Care
Set to take effect just weeks from now, EOLO establishes a legal framework allowing terminally ill patients with a prognosis of six months or less to obtain and self-administer lethal prescriptions. However, the central grievance of the lawsuit does not target the legalization of assisted suicide alone, but rather the statutory mandates compelling doctors and faith-based healthcare facilities—who conscientiously object to the practice—to facilitate it.
According to the complaint, objecting providers must:
Inform patients of the purported “benefits” of assisted suicide as a legitimate end-of-life option.
Refer or transfer patients to practitioners “able and willing” to evaluate and qualify them for a lethal prescription.
Document patient requests in medical records, which triggers the qualification process with other providers.
Refrain from “deploying misinformation,” which the plaintiffs fear criminalizes traditional counsel against suicide or any distinction drawn between palliative care and intentional self-destruction.
Attribute deaths strictly to underlying terminal illnesses on death certificates, rather than noting the ingestion of lethal substances.
“Illinois is on the verge of extinguishing these traditions quite literally overnight,” the complaint states, noting that the law forces medical professionals into a “volte-face with nearly two millennia of medical practice” rooted in the Hippocratic Oath.
Plaintiffs Representing Diverse Medical and Religious Backgrounds
The lawsuit brings together a cross-section of Illinois healthcare providers and religious leaders who argue that compliance would force them to violate their deepest moral and theological convictions:
Dr. Michal Porubcin: A hematologist-oncologist practicing in East Moline, Dr. Porubcin has treated cancer patients for decades and serves as vice president of his local Catholic Medical Association guild.
Dr. Mary Keen Kirchoff: A Chicago-area physician specializing in pediatric physical medicine and rehabilitation who regularly treats patients with severe disabilities.
Dr. Michael Hawking: A Chicago-based hematologist, oncologist, clinical ethicist, and medical professor who has published scholarship examining legalized euthanasia in Europe.
Dr. Brian Couri: A physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist in the Chicago area with over 30 years of practice experience.
Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki: The Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, who is charged with enforcing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs) across two major Catholic hospital systems, Hospital Sisters Health System (HSHS) and OSF HealthCare.
Lutheran Care Center: A 96-bed non-profit, faith-based skilled nursing facility in Altamont, Illinois, owned and supported by 20 area Lutheran churches.
Broad Legal Challenges and Federal Preemption Claims
The 73-page complaint outlines eight distinct counts, seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction to block the state from enforcing the contested provisions.
The plaintiffs argue that EOLO fails strict scrutiny under the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses because it targets content and viewpoint, compelling professionals to endorse a specific message. They also assert claims under the church autonomy doctrine, the First Amendment right of expressive association, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, contending that terms like “deploying misinformation to obstruct” are impermissibly vague.
Furthermore, the suit alleges that EOLO directly conflicts with federal statutes, including the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act and the Affordable Care Act, both of which prohibit discrimination against healthcare entities that decline to participate in assisted suicide.
State officials have not yet filed a formal response in court. The case highlights an intensifying legal battle nationwide over the extent to which states can require objecting medical professionals to facilitate end-of-life procedures that conflict with their professional ethics and religious beliefs.
The complaint is available here: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63d954d4e4ad424df7819d46/6a7b60b010c1a6286ce6050b_260811-EOLO%20Complaint-dkt%201_Redacted.pdf