Don’t delay decision on aid-in-dying bill

Death and taxes are not the only sure things in life. Politicians stalling on making difficult decisions is also a certainty.

A decision on whether to permit the terminally ill the right to end their lives is miles from safe political ground. Over the last decade in Connecticut, lawmakers have proposed related bills seven times. It was slated to come up for discussion before the state’s Public Health Committee again Monday, but some members were absent, so the right call was made to postpone. It may be back on the schedule Friday.

Progress inched forward over that decade. After a 12-hour hearing last year, the committee chose not to forward a bill. It may seem unlikely to gain more traction in a short session, but that would be just another excuse.

One indicator of forward movement came last year when the Connecticut State Medical Society shifted its position to “engaged neutrality,” which translates to leaving the choice to member physicians.

That move toward individual choice is what this issue is all about. It also mirrors how the movement tilted in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Medical Society steadfastly opposed medically assisted death and repeated proposals until three years ago, when it took a neutral position.

Massachusetts and New Hampshire are considering it again this year. In the meantime, eight other states, along with Washington, D.C., have passed aid-in-dying measures, starting with Oregon in 1994 and Maine and New Jersey most recently in 2019.

So, like someone who wants to cross the state border to buy recreational marijuana in Massachusetts, a terminally ill person could choose to die in another state.

“(A) ZIP code should not define a person’s end-of-life journey,” said Tim Appleton of Compassion & Choices in Connecticut.

The subject is uncomfortable, thus the euphemisms used to define it (“The Death with Dignity Act”). But lawmakers need to do their homework to understand safeguards written into bills, and consider if more are needed.

Typically, the law includes several safeguards. Two physicians must determine the person has less than six months to live. The individual alone can make the call, and must be declared competent and follow a waiting period.

Opposition has understandably been raised on religious grounds that a life must not be taken under any circumstances. Those hesitations are routinely disregarded by lawmakers at wartime.

There is also the reasonable fears of abuse. Existing laws mandate that witnesses to the decision cannot be someone who could benefit from the person’s death.

The instinct to stall on this issue is understandable because it calls for everyone to imagine themselves with a loved one who is dying. There is no decision more personal than this one. A person who is suffering should not be blocked from ending their agony by institutions, whether religious or governmental. The mere existence of this law could ease emotional pain.

Everyone should have to right to die with dignity. There is no dignity in hesitating to prevent suffering.

Opposition has understandably been raised on religious grounds that a life must not be taken under any circumstances. Those hesitations are routinely disregarded by lawmakers at wartime.