The House Human Services Committee is poised to pass out a bill on Tuesday morning that would create a set of procedures for physicians to help terminally ill patients voluntarily end their lives with the use of prescription drugs.
Last week, the committee found itself at a crossroads and was forced to make a decision: Vote to move in the direction of Republican Rep. Anne Donahue’s version of S.77, which was based on the bill that passed out of the Senate, or vote for Progressive Rep. Sandy Haas’ lengthy amendment, which is based on an Oregon law that went into effect in 1998.
The committee voted to move forward with Vice Chair Haas’ amendment and then spent the rest of the week poring over the language.
“Our committee made a majority decision to move forward with a process that ensures that if somebody makes this choice, it is the patient’s choice and it is voluntary,” said Democratic Rep. Ann Pugh, who chairs the committee and plans to vote the new draft out on Tuesday.
The bill would then move over to the House Judiciary Committee, where it is slated to be picked up on Tuesday afternoon.
“We anticipate seeing it move out of our committee by the end of the week,” said Democratic Rep. Bill Lippert, who chairs the Judiciary Committee and supports the Oregon-based legislation.
Dick Walters, president of the nonprofit Patient Choices, has led an effort to bring Oregon’s legislation to fruition in Vermont for more than a decade. He was a strong supporter of the version of S.77 that passed out of Senate Health and Welfare, but opposed the bill that passed out of the Senate after a tie-breaking vote from Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Scott. He said the one-page bill, which replaced 21 pages of procedures, didn’t provide necessary safety nets for doctors and patients. The bill the House Human Services Committee is weighing closely resembles the Senate Health and Welfare Bill. Walters couldn’t be happier.
“I’m delighted,” he said. “It has all of the safety provisions of the Oregon law. It has all of the provisions that have worked well for the past 15 years.”
But many opponents of this legislation call those provisions “legal hoops,” and they say that the Oregon legislation places the state in between a doctor and his or her patient.
“It goes to an extreme that most Vermonters would not be comfortable with if they understood it,” Donahue said. “There is a basic, simple way we could do it by making clear in law that the doctor-patient privilege is respected, and the doctor acts appropriately to help the patient through that time. We don’t need this kind of a structure.”
Attorney General Bill Sorrell disagrees. He has advocated for the Oregon-based law this session because, he says, it provides safeguards for both physicians and patients.
