State should approve aid-in-dying proposal
The question of medically assisted aid in dying is understandably emotional. We don’t tend to like talk about death, even as it’s the one certainty that binds us all. But the conversation has changed in recent years as more people are willing to have difficult discussions with their families and doctors in an effort to ease minds when their time eventually comes.
Nine states today allow some form of medical aid in dying, or, as proponents like to call it, death with dignity. But it has never advanced out of committee in the times it has been introduced in Connecticut.
It’s important to note how many safeguards are involved in the proposed legislation. The plan would allow doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to terminally ill patients, limited to people who have six months or less to live. Potential candidates would need to submit two written requests for the drug, and doctors must inform them of any risks and alternatives.
It’s not something that would be done lightly or without planning.
Still, the opposition is fierce, and not just for religious reasons. Many simply can’t get comfortable with helping take someone’s life, regardless of the circumstances a person might be facing. No one is unaware of the agonizing decisions involved in end-of-life care, but offering aid in dying is simply not something the state should involve itself in, according to many people. Nothing about this is easy. But as the issue continues to gain attention in other states, it’s important for Connecticut to seriously consider the proposal. Ultimately, it’s about giving people more say in how they live their lives, including right up until their final moments.
Considering everyone could find themselves in this situation, either for themselves or their loved ones, it makes sense to give people as much control as possible over how they take leave of this world.
The safeguards are important, and could be strengthened. Disability rights advocates have objected in the past, and their concerns over misdiagnoses and other problems must be taken seriously. Worries about possible coercion are equally serious, and must be considered as legislators move forward.
Ultimately, though, this is about personal autonomy. To people who have faced gut-wrenching moments with loved ones in severe pain and no hope of recovery, the lack of options can be heartbreaking. To give people an option for an alternative, that lets them assert at least some control in a situation where everything else has failed, is one small comfort we can offer.
It’s not unprecedented, as the actions of other states have shown. It’s not a slippery slope, and would not set up “death panels” or necessitate medical rationing. The scare stories used to oppose such proposals in the past have mostly slipped away, but are still worth refuting.
Most opponents are principled, and their stances must be acknowledged and reckoned with. But if there’s a way to make an unbearable situation easier for people in the worst days of their lives, it’s a step we should take. The Legislature should move ahead on the proposed aid-in-dying bill.
Ultimately, it’s about giving people more say in how they live their lives, including right up until their final moments.