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.

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.