Legislature Advances 'Medical Aid in Dying' Bill for Governor's Review

Legislature Advances 'Medical Aid in Dying' Bill for Governor's Review

M Hasan    12:26 PM   

The Debate Over Medical Aid in Dying

CHICAGO, Ill. – A new bill has been passed by the Illinois legislature that could allow terminally ill adults to access life-ending medication prescribed by a physician. This legislation, known as Senate Bill 1950, is currently awaiting the governor’s signature and, if signed, would take effect after nine months. The measure has sparked a heated debate between advocates and opponents, with supporters emphasizing compassion and autonomy while critics raise concerns about potential risks and ethical implications.

How the Bill Was Passed

The bill was approved by the Senate with a vote of 30-27 on Oct. 31, following its passage in the House with a 63-42 vote in May. It now only needs the governor's approval to become law. Advocates believe this will provide terminally ill individuals with a sense of control over their final days, while opponents express worries about the impact on vulnerable populations and religious values.

Support from Advocates

Suzy Flack, an advocate from Chicago, has been a strong supporter of the bill. She pushed for it in memory of her son Andrew, who died of cancer in 2022. Andrew chose to live in California, where medical aid in dying options were available, and he experienced a peaceful death. Flack believes that the bill will bring comfort to others in similar situations.

"Inevitably, losing a child is the hardest thing that anyone could go through," Flack said. "I am just comforted every day by the way his death was so peaceful. He had some control over things."

What the Bill Includes

Senate Bill 1950 outlines specific requirements for eligibility. Patients must be Illinois residents aged 18 or older with a terminal illness that is expected to result in death within six months. Two physicians must confirm the diagnosis. A diagnosis of major depressive disorder alone does not qualify patients for the medication.

Patients must make both oral and written requests for aid in dying. Physicians are required to evaluate the patient’s mental capacity and assess for any signs of coercion or undue influence. They must also inform patients of alternative hospice care and pain management options before prescribing the medication.

Those who qualify must be able to self-administer the medication, and they retain the right to withdraw their request at any time or choose not to ingest the medication.

Death certificates for those who use the medication will list the cause of death as the underlying terminal disease, not suicide.

Safeguards and Concerns

Bill sponsor Linda Holmes, D-Aurora, emphasized that there are over 20 safeguards in place to prevent abuse or coercion. She cited Oregon’s 28-year history of medical aid in dying, noting that no substantiated cases of coercion or abuse have occurred there.

However, critics like Jil Tracy, R-Quincy, expressed concerns about the six-month prognosis window. She argued that medical advancements can sometimes extend a patient’s life beyond the initial diagnosis. Holmes responded that doctors typically overestimate patients’ prognoses and that most patients who qualify do not end up taking the medication.

Tracy also raised concerns about the potential for potent drugs to fall into the wrong hands, particularly among young people struggling with mental health issues.

Impact on Physicians and Culture

Sen. Steve McClure, R-Springfield, drew parallels between veterinarians and physicians, suggesting that providing end-of-life care could create a mental health crisis among medical professionals. The American Medical Association has long opposed physician-assisted aid in dying, calling it incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer.

The bill does not require physicians to prescribe the medication and protects them from legal consequences for either prescribing or refusing to do so.

"Nobody who doesn’t want to be involved is going to have to be involved," McCurdy said.

Opposing Views

Sen. Chris Balkema, R-Channahon, called the bill a "slippery slope" and warned against introducing a "culture of death" in Illinois. He pointed to other states that have expanded medical aid in dying options over time.

Advocates argue that the bill is not about promoting death but about giving agency to those who are already dying. Suzy Flack emphasized that the term "assisted suicide" is misleading and insulting to those who seek to live.

Compassion, Not Suicide

Sen. Laura Fine, D-Glenview, described the issue as one of choice and compassion. She stressed that the bill is not about suicide but about allowing terminally ill individuals to make decisions about their own lives.

Flack hopes Gov. JB Pritzker will sign the bill to provide agency to people like her son. At a recent news conference, Pritzker said he was reviewing the legislation and acknowledged the pain of those facing terminal illnesses.

"I know how terrible it is that someone who’s in the last six months of their life could be experiencing terrible pain and anguish," Pritzker said.

Walmart to Eliminate Artificial Colors, 30 Additives from Store Brands by 2027

Walmart to Eliminate Artificial Colors, 30 Additives from Store Brands by 2027

M Hasan    10:17 AM   

Walmart's Plan to Remove Synthetic Food Dyes and Other Ingredients

Walmart has announced a significant initiative to remove synthetic food dyes and 30 other ingredients from its store brands in the United States by January 2027. This move includes preservatives, artificial sweeteners, and fat substitutes. The company stated that this change will affect approximately 1,000 products, ranging from salty snacks and baked goods to power drinks, salad dressings, and frosting.

The decision comes as American consumers and the US government under President Donald Trump show increased attention to the contents of packaged foods. Despite some of the ingredients on Walmart’s removal list already being banned or not widely used in the US for decades, the action is seen as a response to growing consumer demand for fewer additives in food.

Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for the advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, described the move as a "sweeping declaration and a considerable response to consumer demand and sentiment." He noted that the list represents a positive step, especially considering the reach of Walmart's private label brands in US households.

Focus on Major Private Label Brands

Walmart's reformulation plan primarily targets its largest private-label food brand, Great Value. Changes are also expected in Walmart's Marketside and Freshness Guaranteed lines of prepared foods, as well as in its premium label Bettergoods products. The initiative expands on previous efforts by major food companies like Kraft Heinz, Nestle, and Conagra Brands, which have pledged to eliminate petroleum-based synthetic dyes in the coming years.

The chemicals and compounds Walmart plans to eliminate include potassium nitrate, potassium nitrite, and potassium bisulfite, used as preservatives in processed meats, as well as artificial sweeteners like advantame and neotame. These choices reflect a broad approach to food manufacturing, aiming to address potential health concerns associated with these additives.

Health Concerns and Controversies

Health advocates have raised concerns about several ingredients on Walmart’s list, including synthetic dyes, titanium dioxide, azodicarbonamide, propylparaben, potassium bromate, and phthalates. Phthalates, used to make plastic flexible, can end up in food through packaging, although the FDA has limited their use rather than banning them entirely.

Some of the 11 artificial food dyes listed by Walmart were already banned, proposed for ban, or haven't been used for years. For example, Red No. 4, Red No. 3, Citrus Red No. 2, and Orange B were already out of the US market. Additionally, simplesse, a fat substitute phased out in 2023, and synthetic trans fatty acids, which the FDA effectively phased out in 2023, were included in the list.

Experts expressed mixed reactions to Walmart’s choices. While some found the list surprising, others acknowledged it as a positive commitment. Thomas Galligan, a scientist focused on food additives, noted that while some items may raise concerns, many have been under scrutiny for a long time.

Challenges in Reformulation

Reformulating products to replace synthetic ingredients with natural alternatives presents challenges. Scott Morris, Walmart’s senior vice president of private brands food, consumables, and manufacturing, explained that replacing synthetic dyes and other additives requires careful consideration of product performance, taste, and affordability.

For instance, Great Value cheese dips will now use paprika and annatto instead of Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6. A new version of Great Value Fruit Spins Cereal will derive its colors from beta carotene, annatto, blue-green spirulina, and juice concentrates instead of Red No. 40, Yellow No. 6, and Blue No. 2.

Morris emphasized that each product is unique, requiring extensive testing to ensure quality and customer satisfaction. The availability of approved alternatives was a key factor in delaying the overhaul, but he noted that the market for such alternatives is expanding, making now the right time to proceed.

Federal Scrutiny of Artificial Dyes

The federal government is also increasing its scrutiny of artificial food dyes. Days before Trump returned to office, the FDA banned the dye called Red 3 from the nation's food supply, nearly 35 years after it was prohibited in cosmetics due to potential cancer risks.

Walmart's announcement highlights a broader trend toward transparency and health-conscious choices in the food industry. As consumers become more informed and demanding, retailers like Walmart are responding with initiatives that align with evolving preferences and regulatory expectations.

Mississippi Urges Action as Infant Death Toll Surges

Mississippi Urges Action as Infant Death Toll Surges

M Hasan    9:23 AM   

Mississippi Declares Public Health Emergency Over Rising Infant Mortality Rates

Mississippi health officials have declared a public health emergency after data revealed that the state’s infant mortality rate has reached its highest level in over a decade. In 2024, the state recorded 9.7 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births, nearly double the national average of 5.6 deaths per 1,000. Since 2014, more than 3,500 infants in Mississippi have died before their first birthday. This alarming trend has prompted officials to take urgent action, highlighting the broader national issue of infant mortality and the systemic challenges that contribute to it.

Infant Mortality Rate: A Nationwide Concern

The problem is not unique to Mississippi. Even in cities with robust healthcare systems like Boston, Black infants continue to face higher mortality rates compared to White infants. Recent reports from Boston show that Black infants die at more than twice the rate of the overall population and triple the rate of White infants. Despite the city's overall infant mortality rate falling below the national average, these disparities underscore the limitations of focusing solely on individual behavior or clinical care. Structural inequities remain a critical factor in the high number of infant deaths across the country.

Dr. Dan Edney, State Health Officer, emphasized the gravity of the situation when he announced the declaration. "Every single infant loss represents a family devastated, a community impacted, and a future cut short," he said. "We cannot and will not accept these numbers as our reality."

Causes Behind the Rising Mortality Rate

The leading causes of infant death in Mississippi include congenital malformations, premature birth, low birthweight, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Racial disparities are stark—Black infants in Mississippi are more than twice as likely as White infants to die before their first birthday, and recent data shows these gaps have widened.

Experts argue that declaring a public health emergency is a necessary step to address this crisis. Dr. Michael Warren, Chief Medical and Health Officer at March of Dimes, stated, "This is a novel and necessary step. It elevates infant mortality to the level of urgent crisis response, which it truly is."

Why the Declaration Matters

The declaration allows Mississippi to act swiftly to address gaps in care. The state’s plan includes expanding prenatal services in counties without obstetric providers, creating an obstetric system of care to regionalize services, and improving emergency transfers. Additionally, the state aims to strengthen home visiting and community health worker programs.

"Improving maternal health is the best way to reduce infant mortality," Dr. Edney said. Dr. Morgan McDonald of the Milbank Memorial Fund added that the declaration should draw attention to a preventable tragedy. "We applaud Dr. Edney and his team for raising the alarm in a way that honors the families who have suffered this loss and focuses on solutions."

However, experts caution that individual and clinical interventions alone are not enough. Dr. Rebekah Gee, CEO of Nest Health, stressed, "Healthy babies come from healthy moms. If women can't get continuous healthcare before, during, and after pregnancy, it's no surprise their babies are dying at higher rates."

Federal Funding Cuts and Their Impact

Federal funding cuts are complicating the state’s response. The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), a CDC program that collects data on maternal and infant health, has been targeted for elimination. CDC staff who conducted the survey for nearly 40 years were recently fired, and many Safe Motherhood initiatives are now at risk of losing funding.

"This is willful ignorance to cut vital programs when we have public health crises," said a former CDC staffer. "For many people, it's downright dangerous to be pregnant in the U.S. in the 21st century."

Polling suggests most Americans support maintaining these programs. According to the Emory-Rollins National Child Policy Poll, 65% of Americans believe PRAMS is important for improving outcomes, while only 10% think it's unnecessary.

Medicaid and Its Role in Maternal and Infant Health

Medicaid plays a significant role in Mississippi, financing almost 60% of births in the state. In 2023, the state extended postpartum Medicaid coverage from two months to a full year. However, Mississippi has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, leaving many low-income women uninsured before or between pregnancies.

Congressional proposals could further impact Medicaid coverage, including a reconciliation bill that would require many enrollees to prove they are working, volunteering, or in school to receive coverage. KFF analysts estimate that such policies could raise Mississippi’s uninsured rate by 1 to 2%, potentially leaving 20,000 to 40,000 more residents without coverage.

Public health experts warn that these policies could destabilize rural hospitals reliant on Medicaid reimbursement, limiting access to prenatal and delivery services in regions already described as "OB deserts."

Lessons from Other States

Other states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act have seen measurable improvements in infant health. Arkansas reported a 29% reduction in Black infant mortality after expansion, while Louisiana saw increases in early prenatal care and decreases in premature births. Colorado also experienced declines in infant mortality, particularly in rural areas.

Nationally, one analysis found a 50% greater reduction in infant mortality in expansion states compared to non-expansion states, with the steepest gains among Black infants. Today, 40 states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid, while Mississippi remains one of 10 holdouts.

A Call for Action

The U.S. has long treated infant mortality as a measure of societal health. Sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois argued over a century ago that high rates of infant deaths among Black families reflected inequities in living conditions rather than innate differences. Mississippi’s emergency declaration and Boston’s persistent disparities suggest these inequities remain deeply entrenched.

State officials say the declaration is intended to galvanize coordinated action across hospitals, state agencies, and community groups. "It will take all of us working together to give every child the chance to live, thrive, and celebrate their first birthday," Dr. Edney said.