In dramatic fashion, Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Scott broke a tie on the Senate floor on Wednesday by endorsing a controversial amendment to a contentious bill.
Scott’s approval effectively rewrites the heart of legislation that allows physicians to help terminally ill patients take their own lives with lethal doses of prescription drugs. The Senate then teed up the bill for a Thursday vote on the floor that, if approved, would drive it over to the House.
The amendment, which was introduced by Democratic Sens. Peter Galbraith and Bob Hartwell, gives physicians full immunity from criminal, civil or professional penalties for prescribing medication “to relieve pain which also has the effect of hastening death or substantially increasing the risk of death.”
The one-page amendment replaces 20 pages of lengthy procedures and patient safety nets that were based on a similar bill passed in Oregon in 1998 and that have been debated in the Legislature since 2003.
Sen. Diane Snelling, R-Chittenden, raised a warning flag that the Senate was making too hasty a decision, considering senators had less than one day to consider an entirely new piece of legislation.
“I … am very concerned that we are being asked to consider something in a very short time frame, which will have the impact of undoing something that has had over 10 years of scrutiny,” she told her fellow senators.
Democratic Sen. Claire Ayer, who chairs the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, struck major issue with the amendment because it removed many patient protection measures from the bill, like screening patients for mental illnesses, ensuring that patients are fully aware of their diagnoses, and requiring that physicians offer patients other options.
“This takes away all safeguards for patients,” she said. “It takes away from what we want to ensure … We want to make sure people know what they’re doing, they understand the consequences and that we keep records that shows us how this is working.”
Senators such as Democrat Dick Sears and Republican Joe Benning who opposed the original bill backed the rewrite. Many of these senators said the amendment was more palatable because it did not place the state in between a doctor and his or her patient.
“I understand (Sen. Ayer’s) concern that this amendment would actually be dealt with at the bedside, and that is precisely the point,” said Benning on the floor. “The reason so many people have spoken out against the underlying bill is that they thoroughly object to the state of Vermont injecting itself in between a doctor and a patient.”
After listening to both sides of the debate, he said he proposed the amendment because it “accomplishes what the proponents want with respecting what the opponents were concerned about.”
After receiving an earful from proponents of the original bill outside of the Senate chamber, he defended his stance.
“I don’t believe for a nanosecond that I gutted the bill,” he said after the vote. “Operationally it does everything that the proponents want. It gives people control. It allows family members and loved ones to be with the person at the end of their life if they choose to take their own life; it just doesn’t have a state process.”
Despite Ayer’s distaste for the rewrite, she voted in favor of moving the bill forward for a third reading on Thursday, along with 20 other senators. Ayer did so with a note that the bill was not final until after the House had a crack at it and both bodies of the Legislature could agree on its final language.
“As much as I detest it … we do want to make sure the bill moves,” she said. “And I want to be on that conference committee.”
Dick Walters, the president of Patient Choices At End of Life, said in a statement that the amendment “radically changes both the intention and the practical outcome of the End of Life Choice bill.”
“It strips all of the carefully crafted and well-tested safeguards from the bill and instead gives physicians full immunity when prescribing lethal doses of medication,” Walters said. “However, we recognize that the legislative process requires the bill to be approved at this juncture in order for the senators to continue their consideration of this important piece of legislation.”
