Daniel Medwed, professor of law and criminal justice at Northeastern University school of law, told USA Today that the case may set a precedent of criminalizing those who sympathize with someone who expresses a desire for assisted suicide.
"Don't forget, there's a still a big societal debate going on about assisted suicide," he said. "This sort of verdict would imply that anyone being sympathetic to a loved one could be at fault."
Matthew Segal, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the verdict "is saying that what she did is killing him, that her words literally killed him, that the murder weapon here was her words."
Anti-assisted suicide groups believe that the case is significant because of the weight it places on outside pressures on already vulnerable people to take their lives, though it remains unclear if the case will set any legal precedent regarding the issue in reality.
Tim Rosales, a spokesperson for Patient's Rights Action Fund, told CNA that when it comes to assisted suicide, there are often outside pressures that can influence the person's decision to end their life.
"Whether it's the denial of a certain type of treatment, or there is the insinuation by a physician or a family member or someone close to them about the potential of assisted suicide versus (continued care), all of those go into someone's mindset and decision making," he said.
These outside pressures can be particularly strong "when they're in a vulnerable state, and mental illness as well as physical illness can be one of those things that puts people in a vulnerable state," Rosales said.
"I think we have to be exceedingly cautious and that's one of the big reasons why you have a lot of opposition to something like assisted suicide, because at its very core it is fraught with the possibility for abuse or dangers," he said.
"I think in (the Carter case) certainly the dynamics surrounding it kind of give us an indication of how vulnerable people can be at times and how influential those close to us are during those vulnerable times."
John B. Kelly, New England Regional Director of the disability advocacy and anti-assisted suicide group Not Dead Yet, told CNA that he does not believe the Carter case will affect future assisted suicide legislation because the decision drew heavily from a 2002 case, Commonweath v. Levesque.
In the case of Commonwealth v. Levesque, homeless couple Thomas S. Levesque and Julie Ann Barnes were found responsible for the death of six firefighters who ran into a factory building as it burned. Levesque and Barnes had been living in the factory, escaped the fire and failed to report it.
In the Carter case, Judge Lawrence Moniz drew from the case directly in his verdict, saying that "where one's actions create a life-threatening risk to another, there is a duty to take reasonable steps to alleviate the risk. The reckless failure to fulfill this duty can result in a charge of manslaughter."
"I don't think that it adds any legal precedent to deciding what are words and what's coercion (in assisted suicide cases)," Kelly told CNA.
"But I think we can say that words matter, and that this ruling underlines the commonsense notion that we make choices in a context, and that those contexts can be influenced by other people," he said.
"Assisted suicide proponents argue that an individual makes that choice freely without any impact, but we know that it's hard to choose...when you're seen as a burden by those around you and your doctor thinks you would be better off dead, those are influences that would be very difficult for vulnerable people to resist."