Since it was introduced last year, a bill that would give terminally-ill Vermonters the right to voluntarily end their own lives has gone nowhere. “An Act Relating to Patient Choice and Control at End of Life” — bill number S. 103 — was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee and, despite vigorous lobbying from supporters, had not gotten a hearing.
Next week, it finally will.
State Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington) told Seven Days today the Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, will review the bill on Tuesday, March 13 and take three hours of testimony on Wednesday, March 14, to hear from the main groups for and against the legislation.
Sears (pictured) cautioned that there’s no guarantee it will be voted on — either by the committee or by the full Senate. Even if it is, Sears doesn’t believe the legislation has the votes to pass in either venue.
So why take it up?
“Part of the reason for doing this hearing is I’m meeting right now with a group of constituents at an independent living facility tomorrow here in Bennington,” Sears said. “And they’ve asked me to better understand their side and I want to understand the other side as well. It’s highly controversial and it’s highly emotional and I’m sure there will be emotional testimony on both sides.”
Two senators on the Judiciary Committee — Diane Snelling (R-Chittenden) and Jeanette White (D-Windham) — are co-sponsors of the bill. Sears himself opposes what supporters call “death with dignity” and opponents call “physician assisted suicide.” Senate President John Campbell (D-Windsor), a practicing Catholic, opposes the bill as well, but has said he wouldn’t stand in the way of it coming to a vote.
The Senate’s deadline for passing bills this session — referred to as crossover — comes at the end of next week, though Sears said someone could attach right-to-die legislation to another House or Senate bill before the biennium ends this spring.
Modeled after Oregon’s right-to-die law, the Vermont legislation would allow mentally competent adults with a terminal illness to request a fatal dose of medication. Opponents have called it a “transgression of medical practice.” A group called True Dignity Vermont has posted an action alert on its website urging members to write or call their senators expressing opposition to the bill in advance of next week’s hearing.
Sears told Vermont Public Radio in January that it was “pointless” to take up a bill that didn’t have the votes to pass.
What changed his mind?
“I wouldn’t call it changing my mind,” Sears said. “I may have said I didn’t want to hold a hearing, or I wasn’t going to do it, but I wouldnt call it changing my mind. I would call it looking at the issue. Frequently, committees hold hearings on issues just to understand them a little better.”
The witness list for next week’s hearing is stil in flux. Sears said he invited Ed Paquin from the Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights and a representative of the bill’s main proponents, Patient Choices Vermont. If the bill moved any further, Sears said he would “certainly” hold public hearings, “try to provide more opportunity for the public to testify — general members of the public.”
Lobbyist Adam Necrason, a spokesman for Patient Choices Vermont, said the group is “excited” the committee will hear testimony on the legislation.
“Once the facts come in through the hearing process, hopefully it will be clear that the strong majority of Vermonters’ view this as a personal liberty issue,” Necrason said. “We hope lawmakers will be swayed by the facts proven by the law’s extensive track record in Oregon, not the fears portrayed by some opponents.”
Proponents have tried for years to pass the bill, and at significant expense. The closest they came was in 2007, when the bill reached a vote in the House but was put down, 63 to 82. That year Patient Choices Vermont ended up spending $120,000 to promote its position, while the main opposition group, Vermont Alliance for Ethical Healthcare, spent $43,000 on paid advertising and lobbying, according to tax filings.
“The Vermont dialogue is very mature on this, and the isuse is ripe and ready for action,” Necrason said.
If Patient Choices Vermont is discouraged by Sears’ gloomy predictions for the bill’s prospects, Necrason isn’t letting on.
“We see a path to passage,” he said. “We think the vote is close and the facts matter, and they come out through the legislative process.”
Photo credit: Andy Bromage
This article appears in The Real Estate Issue 2012.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
It’s a useless bill. We already have the right to life which, by automatically means you have the right to die. Just one more way the government wants to get in on dictating what you can and can not do. Fools, their opinion doesn’t matter one way or the other.
Ironic that this bill never seems to die.
“Once the facts come in through the hearing process, hopefully it will be clear that the strong majority of Vermonters’ view this as a personal liberty issue,”
I am not opposed to death with dignity in principle, although I do have some concerns about the possibility of children or relatives deciding to “pull the plug” for purely econimc reasons.
That said, my concern is with the statement that a “majority” of Vermonters (allegedly” favor this. Laws should never be based just purely on what the “majority” wants.
For someone to be able to use the rights this bill would assure he or she must be competent and able to administer the medicines him/herself. No one can do it for you (for economic or any other reason.) If you are not able to take the medicines for any reason, then you indeed are back into the healthcare scenario that everyone is now.
I was a hospital chaplain for over 13 years and sat with many people as they struggled with end of life decisions and care. I think the opinion that the majority of people in VT would be grateful to have this option is true. It is not true that everyone would choose to use it. In fact, in Oregon only a very small percentage of people who even ask and qualify to be able to use this right actually follow through. The peace of mind that comes with knowing that you could is often enough to allow everyone, including the family and healthcare system itself, to allow a quiet, dignified death to occur. In fact the best thing the Oregon law did was support palliative care and hospice. They now have the highest utilization rates in the country.
It would be such a blessing if VT had this law in our statutes so that Vermonters would be assured of having choices in their lives from the beginning of life to the end.
“It would be such a blessing if VT had this law in our statutes so that
Vermonters would be assured of having choices in their lives from the
beginning of life to the end. “
We do. Article 1 of the Vermont State Constitution provides “That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain
natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying
and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,
and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety”
We have an unalienable right to LIBERTY and to LIFE. You can’t have the right to life without having the right to end it. You also have a right to liberty, giving you the right to end your own life. The legislature has no authority to make a law that takes away or gives you the right to die. It’s that simple. It’s an unconstitutional bill as by definition the government has no power to regulate unalienable rights.
To be able to end one’s life after going through the numerous ways this bill guarantees each step of the way that the person deciding to end their life is making their right choice, is indeed, death with dignity. I have seen too many friends and relatives languish in nursing homes or in other places, struggling with pain.
Imagine, if every new day all you have to look forward to is a deteriorating body often living in great pain and isolation. It isn’t making it through the day and feeling better the next day, but feeling the same or worse the next day. For those who decide enough is enough already, let us do the humane thing: let these few people who opt to end their lives on their own terms, have the right to do it legally.