Subject: Arizona Bill introduced
Note: See analysis of this bill at the end of the story.
The following press release was issued by HEMLOCK USA (Nov 17/97)
ARIZONA LEGISLATION WOULD EXPAND END-
OF-LIFE MEDICAL OPTIONS
PHOENIX -- A bill to strengthen patient-doctor
relationships and give patients greater control of
end-of-life options was filed today for the upcoming
session of the Arizona legislature. The omnibus bill was
introduced by Prescott Representative Sue Lynch with
co-sponsorship of 40 of the state's 90 lawmakers,
including members of both parties, the speaker of the
house, the chairwoman of the health committee, and all
three physician legislators.
The measure has the full support of Hemlock Society
USA, the nation's largest organization
concerned with patients rights and end-of-life options.
Hemlock national president John Westover, a Tucson
resident, praised Representative Lynch for forming a
consensus of many diverse interests. "Co-sponsorship
does not ensure a vote for the bill, but it does indicate
widespread concern for this sensitive issue," he said.
The Arizona measure is the nation's first to cover such a
wide range of patient options, including curative
treatment, hospice care, refusal of medical treatment, do-
not-resuscitate instructions, and removal of life support.
The bill would require doctors to discuss all treatment
alternatives with terminally ill patients and require
health care personnel to honor advance medical
directives and informed decisions given by patients or
their medical surrogates.
If enacted the bill would enhance opportunities for
managing acute and chronic pain of the terminally ill --
those with a probable life expectancy of six months or
less. Westover said the bill would give dying persons
and their families more information and greater freedom
to choose among available options.
Arizonans for Death with Dignity, a Hemlock affiliate
with seven Arizona chapters, is a major supporter of the
legislation. In a statement from Hemlock's Denver
national headquarters, executive director Faye Girsh
praised the Arizona bill as an example of consensus
building at the state level. "The Supreme Court justices
emphatically encouraged better palliative care and said
laws on end-of-life decisions are matters to be discussed
and decided by each state. Arizonan is leading the way."
She lauded the Arizona lawmakers for keeping patient
rights in the spotlight, following closely the November 4
vote in which Oregonians retained that state's Death with
Dignity Law.
The Arizona bill, titled Medical Treatment Options for
Terminal Illness, is the first bill to be placed on the 1998
legislative agenda. Hearings are set for mid-January.
Hemlock Society and its legislative arm -- PRO-USA --
are also supporting proposed legislation in Maine and in
California, where a California Assembly Select
Committee on Palliative Care is holding public hearings.
The Maine bill, introduced by Representative Joe
Brooks, is being considered in committee. The
California effort is spearheaded by Friends of Dying
Patients and Americans for Death with Dignity.
Note from DBE: The bill referred to here, HB 2001, was introduced November
12 in Alcor's home state of Arizona. It is of limited use to cryonicists,
but might be of some help to us. The bill as finally introduced is a
watered-down version of a bill that would have allowed "terminal sedation"
as an option that a terminally-ill person could choose via a durable power
of attorney for health care. The final version of the bill allows choice
of "palliative care" which may include "sedation or analgesia in an amount
necessary to releive pain or suffering." Previous drafts of the bill
included the phrase "even if this would result in a hastened death." The
practice of "terminal sedation" -- i.e., giving enough pain killing drugs
to hasten death as long as the intent is only to releive suffering -- is
currently legal and endorsed by both the AMA and the Catholic Church, but
it's practice is sporadic and pretty much under the table. This bill, even
in its watered-down form, is basically intended to write that practice into
law and make it easier to obtain. The phraseology is so couched, however,
that it is virtually impossible to forsee what the practical outcome would be.
This bill, however, has a tremendous advantage over a bill that would
outright legalize physician-aid-in-dying, and that is that this bill
actually has a chance of passing, whereas a "good" bill would have no
chance at all at this time. This bill is a small step forward (part of the
camel's nose in the tent).
The full text of this bill should be available on the web in about a month.
Read it here