Doctors, lawmakers, religious leaders and advocates for those with disabilities came out in full force Tuesday to oppose a state commission that would study end-of-life choices, saying it could start New Hampshire down a path to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.
“What’s the harm in studying an issue?” said Meredith Cook, representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester. “In this instance . . . it would send the message that suicide is worthy of study, that suicide has a place in our society.”
The bill up for debate would establish a 13-member commission, composed of lawmakers, physicians, religious leaders and others, to investigate positive and negative aspects of aid-in-dying laws that other states have enacted. The commission would also look at “how to encourage careful and responsible deliberation about this issue” before reporting back to the Legislature in 2016, and again in 2017.
During a two-hour House Judiciary Committee hearing on the bill, SB 426, proponents said the state should be allowed to have a conversation about choice and dying.
“This is such an important issue,” said Concord Sen. Dan Feltes, the bill’s prime sponsor. “It’s important to finally study it in a thoughtful and deliberate way.”
Lawmakers have unsuccessfully tried to launch similar study committees in the past. While the Legislature passed two bills in recent years to establish committees that look at end-of-life decisions, Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan vetoed both, saying the legislation’s goals could “take New Hampshire down a precarious path.”
This year’s end-of-life commission bill has passed the Senate, and it is now headed to the House.
It’s not clear whether Hassan would sign the latest proposal. In a statement, spokesman William Hinkle said Hassan appreciates that the commission includes a broader cross-section of stakeholders than previous bills and will “review the measure closely.”
Several states, including California, Vermont, Washington and Oregon, already have laws that permit physician aid-in-dying, also known as physician-assisted suicide. The policies generally allow certain terminal patients to be prescribed a lethal dose of medication.
The proposed commission would study those laws and also examine “innovation practices of other states.”
Opponents at the hearing largely criticized aid-in-dying, which some said is a euphemism for euthanasia. Many opponents said aid-in-dying policies are irresponsible because a patient’s prognosis can be wrong, too much power is put in doctors hands and the state should focus its energy instead on helping everyone lead quality lives.
“We as a people should be thinking positively about how we should improve the care for the weak, the sick and the depressed,” said Rep. Linda Gould, a Bedford Republican. “We should not be promoting the negative outlook that this commission opens up.”
Even though the bill doesn’t establish aid-in-dying laws, some said the passage of a commission to study the issue sends a bad message and could prove a waste of state energy.
“You can study it, and it may be a fascinating discussion,” said Michael Skibbie, policy director for the Disability Rights Center – New Hampshire. “But there is no set of circumstances where it would make sense for the state to go down this road.”
Supporters said that as New Hampshire’s population ages, the state should be allowed to have a conversation about dying. Other proponents pushed back on the notion that aid-in-dying policies are euthanasia, and that the commission would inevitably endorse an aid-in-dying law.
Jim Kinhan, a Concord resident with terminal cancer, told the committee that the bill would simply allow for “some respectful conversation” about the issue.
“We’re all going to die,” said Rep. Larry Phillips, a Keene Democrat and co-sponsor of the bill. “I think we want to die the best way that we know how.”
(Allie Morris can be reached at 369-3307 or at amorris@cmonitor.com.)