Assisted Suicide Bill Should Be Repealed

http://www.thegardenisland.com/2018/05/13/opinion/letters-for-sunday-may-13-2018/

What will it take to repeal Hawaii's new law supporting physician-assisted suicide?

For humanity to evolve, we must relinquish violence which is rampant in our culture. Murder of others and murder of self are forms of violence.

Rather than contriving ways to remove people from the planet, we are invited to creatively and compassionately think of ways to support people on the planet.

Hawaii is a role model for "ohana" and "aloha" and family support; the exact opposite of physician-assisted suicide.

Having experienced the horrific suicides of two of my young adult nephews, I fail to understand why Hawaii's new law is acceptable.

Please do yourself a favor and consider having an honest dialogue with your legislator about repealing the bill.

Terri Donovan Mansfield, Kapaa

Legislators Did Not Know the Text of What They Were Voting On

Scott Nishimoto
"'Pass it then read it,'
 a member of the public
 shouted out sarcastically.'

http://www.civilbeat.org/2018/02/medical-aid-in-dying-bill-takes-major-step-forward-in-hawaii-legislature/

The committees also added another hurdle before a patient could receive the prescription. Aside from needing two medical providers confirming the terminal diagnoses, the six-months-or-less-to-live prognosis and medical competence, the patient must also undergo counseling by a doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist, but could do so by phone.

Hawaii would be the first state to require counseling, Mizuno said. He added that the tele-health provision would help make it easier for residents in Hawaii to comply with the counseling requirement, recognizing that some live in rural areas far from doctors.

The committees also lengthened the time the patient must wait between making two verbal requests for medically assisted death. Instead of 14 days, the amended version now calls for 20 days. One signed written request, witnessed by two people (one unrelated to the patient), is also required.

McDermott, one of the two committee members to vote against the bill, was not provided a copy of the amendments prior to the hearing.

"I don't know what we're voting on," he said as Nishimoto called for the vote.

Nishimoto said that given the time constraints, working on changes to the bill up until 15 minutes before the hearing started, he did not have an opportunity to give McDermott a copy.

"Pass it then read it," a member of the public shouted out sarcastically.

Tehotu said after the hearing that she found it "heartbreaking" that McDermott had to vote on something without even seeing a draft.

Belatti read quickly through the amendments at the beginning of the hearing but copies were not distributed. Civil Beat has requested a copy.

HB 2218 & HB 2736 (Evans & Ruderman) Purported Protections Negated by Other Bill Provisions; Not Enforceable.

HB 2218 &  HB 2736, seeking to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in Hawaii, contain purported patient protections such as a the participation of a second doctor and waiting periods.[1] The bills, however, also hold doctors that the attending provider is merely to ensure that all “appropriate” steps are carried out.[4] In addition, the provider is held to an “accordance” standard. The bill states:

The attending provider shall: . . .

(11) Ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with this chapter . . . .  (Emphasis added).[5]

The bill does not define “accordance.”[6] Dictionary definitions include “in the spirit of,” meaning “in thought or intention.”[7] With these definitions, the attending provider’s mere thought or intention to comply is good enough. The purported safeguards are unenforceable.

Footnotes

[1]  HB 2739, § 1, p.2, lines 11-12.
[2]  Id , p.3, lines 14-16.
[3]  The bill, § 4,  p. 9, line 13 to p. 11, states:

(a) The attending provider shall: . . . 

(4) Refer the patient to a consulting provider for medical confirmation of the diagnosis, and for a determination that the patient is capable and acting voluntarily; . . . [and]

(8) Inform the patient that a qualified patient may rescind the request at any time and in any manner, and offer the qualified patient an opportunity to rescind at the time of the qualified patient's second oral request made pursuant to section - 9 . . . . (Emphasis added).

[4]  The bill, § 4, states::

(a) The attending provider shall: . . .  

(11) Ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with this chapter . . . . 

[5]  Id., § 4
[6]  See the bill in its entirety.[7]  See definitions of "accordance" and "in the spirit of," here and here. 

Update: Touted Safeguards Are Neutralized; Unenforceable

Margaret Dore, Esq.

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

HB 2739 seeks to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined. The bill also promotes itself as having “robust" safeguards.[1] Indeed, the bill goes so far as to say that its "rigorous safeguards would be the strongest of any state in the nation and will thoroughly protect patients and their loved ones from any potential abuse."[2]

The purported safeguards are enumerated and include that the attending provider “shall” refer the patient to a consulting provider, and that the attending provider “shall” offer the patient an opportunity to rescind the lethal dose request.[3]

The bill, however, also says that the attending provider is merely to ensure that all “appropriate” steps are carried out, and that the provider is held to an “accordance” standard. The bill, § 4, states:

The attending provider shall: . . .

(11) Ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with this chapter . . . .  (Emphasis added).[4]

The bill does not define "appropriate" or “accordance.”[5] Dictionary definitions of appropriate include "suitable or fitting."[6] Dictionary definitions of accordance include “in the spirit of,” meaning “in thought or intention.”[7] 

With these definitions, the attending provider’s mere view of what is "suitable or fitting" is enough for safeguard compliance. The provider's mere "thought or intention" is similarly sufficient. The touted safeguards are thus neutralized to whatever an attending provider happens to feel is appropriate and/or had a thought or intention to do. They are unenforceable.