A Senate committee heard sharply divided testimony on Senate Bill 39 on Jan. 27, as proponents said an advisory council would expand access to palliative care in Wisconsin while religious and pro‑life groups pushed for statutory language to prohibit any practices that hasten death.

Supporters including hospice and palliative care practitioners told the committee the council would help coordinate services, educate clinicians and the public, and raise Wisconsin’s readiness to provide palliative care. Carrie Schupp, general manager and registered nurse at VITAS Healthcare and a board member of the Wisconsin Hospice and Palliative Care Association, said the state scored two‑and‑a‑half stars on a readiness metric and cited 22 other states with palliative care advisory bodies.

“Palliative care lengthens life. It gives patients better quality of life,” Schupp said, adding that many clinicians and clinics refer patients to palliative teams because primary care and specialty visits often lack time for goals‑of‑care conversations.

Opponents, led by Pro Life Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, said they supported palliative pain relief but remained concerned that palliative programs could be used inappropriately to hasten death. Matt Sandy, legislative director for Pro Life Wisconsin, urged lawmakers to amend the statutory definition of palliative care to explicitly exclude practices that hasten or assist death and to add pharmacists and anesthesiologists to any advisory council.

“I encourage you to read his testimony,” Sandy said, referring to medical testimony submitted by allied clinicians, and argued that amending a statutory definition would provide clearer legal protections than the bill’s current language. He pointed to Wisconsin statute 940.12, the criminal prohibition on assisting suicide, and said the change would “buttress” existing law.

Committee members and legislative counsel discussed constitutional and First Amendment limits on restricting the scope of advisory councils. Legislative counsel told the panel there is no controlling First Amendment precedent that forbids a legislature from specifying the scope of a state advisory body and noted the government‑speech doctrine.

Medical witnesses described how palliative care teams operate, how palliative care differs from hospice, and how palliative services can keep patients comfortable at home and reduce avoidable hospital visits. Dr. Egon Ismaili, a physician board‑certified in palliative and hospice care, gave clinical examples of symptom control, coordination with cardiology and pulmonology, and telepalliative models to reach rural patients.

Several witnesses described ownership patterns in the field and financial pressures. Testimony submitted and cited in the hearing noted that many hospital palliative programs are affiliated with hospice and that insurers and large providers own some community palliative programs; witnesses warned that program financial structures can affect clinical practice and called for transparent safeguards.

Committee members asked whether the bill’s current language — which the proponents said includes some protections on advice and consultation — adequately prevents misuse in clinical practice. Proponents said the page‑5 protections address consultation content but not in‑field practice, while opponents said adding an explicit statutory definition that excludes hastening death would resolve their concerns.

The hearing closed with committee members thanking witnesses and indicating ongoing interest in refining statutory language and council membership. No formal vote was recorded during the hearing.

Ending: The committee did not take final action during the hearing. Members signaled they may consider amendments addressing definition language and council membership before recommending passage.