State deserves aid-in-dying debate

DAVE HOLMES in his March 2 letter to the editor decrying aid in dying bases his argument on a mistaken premise. He is correct that the New Mexico Supreme Court, in 2016, affirmed the New Mexico Court of Appeals decision that New Mexicans do not have a constitutional right to aid in dying. However, in doing so, the court “respectfully acknowledge[d] the magnitude and importance of the very personal desire of a terminally ill patient to decide how to safely and peacefully exit a painful and debilitating life.”

The court went on to describe some of the legitimate concerns surrounding aid in dying — such as the determination of a patient’s competency and the choice of medical practice and medication to aid a patient in dying — but concluded that “[t]hese concerns require robust debate in the legislative and the executive branches of government.”

“Robust debate” is what we are now privileged to witness and what Holmes would deny us.

Not only did the court acknowledge the need for debate around this issue but it also stated that “[r]egulation in this area is essential.” Recognizing the role the Legislature would play in determining regulations safeguarding aid in dying, the court explained that “[a] lthough the State does not have a legitimate interest in preserving a painful and debilitating life that will imminently come to an end, the State does have a legitimate interest in providing positive protections to ensure that a terminally ill patient’s end-of-life decision is informed, independent, and procedurally safe.” The Legislature is currently carefully crafting those protections and, as a result, when aid in dying is a reality in New Mexico, it will be a law we can be certain will protect the vulnerable populations about whom Holmes wrote as well as those terminally ill individuals who choose to avail themselves of it. NAN BURKE Albuquerque