The House Judiciary Committee approved the “death with dignity” bill in an 8-3 vote today, sending the emotional measure to the House floor for debate next week.
The bill sets up a procedure to help terminally ill patients self-administer a prescription drug to end their lives. The issue has split Vermonters and politicians on both sides of the political aisle for several years.
The bill underwent radical revisions on the Senate floor that whittled down an elaborate set of restrictions on end-of-life decisions over three days of vibrant debate. But the original version was restored in the House Human Services Committee. That committee voted in favor of the bill earlier in the week (link).
The Judiciary Committee expanded the scope of the bill slightly by removing the requirement that a person be enrolled in Hospice in order to procure the legal drug prescription.
“We didn’t want to impose participation in Hospice on anyone,”committee chair, Rep. William Lippert, D-Hinesburg, said.
The committee also made a number of changes that Lippert says will improve the legal clarity around end of life choices.
They added language to make it clear that physicians who commit acts of gross negligence, intentional misconduct, or reckless behavior would not be protected under the immunity clauses in the bill.
“We felt it was implied but it wasn’t explicit,” Lippert said of the original version.
The Judiciary Committee also removed a provision that members thought might unintentionally expose physicians to a criminal or civil suit for prescribing palliative sedatives, which are sometimes used to hasten death.
“Everyone here, no matter what position they took on this bill, wanted that practice protected from any accusation of criminal behavior or exposure to a civil suit.”
The committee’s discussion on Friday wandered between a review of technical details and emotional reflections.
“I feel like we, in a relatively short period of time, have done some amazing due diligence,” Lippert concluded. “For those who want to see something move forward that is as responsible as possible, I think what we’ve done actually does that.”
Rep. Tom Koch, R-Barre, who opposes the legislation, said he wished the bill hadn’t been fast- tracked by end-of-the-session p ressures.
The issue doesn’t necessarily break along party lines, but it happened to in the Judiciary Committee — the three Republican members vote against the bill.
