Members of the New Hampshire House Judiciary Committee heard arguments supporting and opposing a bill that would give terminally ill patients of 18 years of age or older with six months or less to live, or enrolled in a Medicare-certified hospice program, the option to end their life on their terms.
The hotly contended HB 254 has been met with both support and fear among Granite Staters at a House Judiciary Committee meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 29, less than a year after a similar bill, HB 1283 was rejected in the Senate, having been referred to an interim study.
Should a dying patient meet the extensive list of factors outlined in the bill’s text and qualify for medical aid in dying (MAID) under the proposed law, the individual would be able to access medication allowing them to take control of their death and, to an extent, where.
One condition of the bill specifies that patients are advised against taking the medication in public.
It likely won’t come as a surprise that debates surrounding MAID guarantee an outpouring of opposition, both in N.H. and the greater national discourse. I’ll cut straight to the chase and assert my support for HB 254, but not before acknowledging some of the concerns that warrant mindful and considered empathy.
Reporting by the Concord Monitor described the concerns of retired internal medicine physician Michelle Flynn, who fears MAID could lead to normalizing death as a treatment option.
Flynn’s concerns echo those of many who view MAID as a slippery slope that can lead to patients opting to end their lives out of concern for the financial impacts of long-term end-of-life care. Critics also raise concerns regarding possible coercion of patients, misuse and expansion of the law if passed and religious ramifications.
The fear of MAID is made of noble intentions and inspired by a desire to protect and love. I understand that and can deeply empathize with the desire to resist legislation that seemingly authorizes a person to end their own life.
Fortunately, the bill’s text has built-in demands for qualified patients to be determined in good faith and free from coercion.
Regarding the expansion of the law beyond its original design, I would argue that hypotheticals destined to be filtered through the same public scrutiny that has killed proposals similar to the HB 254 would fail to justify the dismissal of a movement to place a person’s fate in their own hands, rather than the government’s.
And so this begs the question, what role should the state play in protecting us from ourselves?
The paternalistic impulse to restrict a terminally ill patient’s right to pass on their terms does nothing more but deteriorate bodily autonomy to a conditional arrangement between one’s self and elected officials. It is simply outside the boundaries of the state’s moral authority to hinder an individual from pursuing an outcome relative to their self-determination and delusional to pretend it’s even possible.
If someone truly wants to choose when and where they pass away and avoid the prolonged pain and suffering they have determined would be otherwise faced, nothing can be done to stop that person from taking matters into their own hands, regardless of the law.
To pretend otherwise is nothing more than an illusion of control.
What HB 254 aims to provide is a humane alternative to what people would already do if faced with factors that lead them to that decision in the first place.
The alternative is a net loss for anyone who actually has a stake in the matter.
Ryan Pacheco can be contacted at
rpacheco@kscequinox.com
