Vermont Governor Signs "Death With Dignity" Law

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Tue May 21, 2013 at 09:55:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Gov. Peter Shumlin has signed Vermont's "Death With Dignity" law. The law allows doctors to prescribe medication that permitting the terminally ill to end their lives. It takes effect today.

The law, which went into effect Monday, allows for an end-of-life procedure with the consent of a patient's doctor after the patient has made more than one request for help in ending life. The bill also stipulates that the patient has a chance to retract the request.

Under the bill, a qualifying patient must be at least 18 years old, a Vermont resident and suffering from an "incurable and irreversible disease," with less than six months to live. Two physicians, including the prescribing doctor, must make that medical determination. The patient must also be told of other end-of-life services, "including palliative care, comfort care, hospice care, and pain control," according to the bill.

Vermont is the fourth state to allow physician-assisted end of life measures. The others are Oregon, Washington and Montana.

< Hearing on IRS Underway | Zimmerman Defense Pleading on Trayvon Martin's Marijuana Use >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Vermont Governor Signs "Death With Dignity" Law | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The humane thing to do.... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by kdog on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:30:02 AM EST

forcing someone to live can be as cruel as forcing someone to die...or forcing someone to break the law to honor such a difficult request for a patient or loved one.

I applaud Vermont, Oregon, Washington, & Montana for allowing death with dignity...as difficult as it is to accept such a decision. I hope more states follow.

My thoughts (none / 0) (#3)
by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:54:48 AM EST

ran to Jack Kevorkian who served eight years in prison for what is now considered the humane thing to do in four States.


: Not the first, nor the last.... (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:01:38 AM EST

to be sent to a cage for conscience, I'm afraid. It's hard out there for trailblazers of humanity.

Gimme some H. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:00:31 AM EST

The patient must also be told of other end-of-life services, "including palliative care, comfort care, hospice care, and pain control," according to the bill.

As to "pain control", would these "humane" States allow the use of Heroin by the terminally ill patient? How about cocaine or marijuana?

Heroin would be my choice from what I have read.
Morphine is used by hospices I know, but heroin might be a lovely way to float into the next life.

Why just subdue pain?
Why not induce pleasure.
Obviously, addiction is not a problem in these instances.

Heroin (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by jbindc on Tue May 21, 2013 at 11:54:17 AM EST

Is a derivative of morphine. Morphine lasts longer.

Myth: "Heroin is needed to provide excellent pain control."Heroin is a derivative of morphine that is more soluble in water than morphine and therefore passes from the blood to the brain more rapidly, thus affording the 'rush' or 'high' desired by intravenous drug abusers. Morphine has a longer period of action. It can be safely taken by mouth. New preparations for sustained release make it possible to obtain excellent relief when taken by mouth only twice daily.

OK (none / 0) (#8)
by lentinel on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:24:44 PM EST

My thought was that the patient should be given whatever drug not only relieves pain, but also provides some kind of pleasure - or escape. Of course, this is if that coincides with what the patient wishes. I'm just saying that heroin, cocaine, marijuana or an opium pipe should all be available to someone with a terminal illness who desires to partake of these time-honored substances.

I believe that these substances should be legalized and controlled in any case. The arguments against this - that the substances are addictive - or they lead to a wasted life, etc. are certainly irrelevant in the cases of the terminally ill.

If the States legalizing assisted suicide - or whatever they want to call it - death with dignity - whatever - are seriously interested in helping the person whose days are numbered - and are not motivated to some degree of ridding themselves of an unwanted burden - they will make chemically induced pleasure a part of the regimen for them. imo.


What they lead to... (none / 0) (#18)
by Mr Natural on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:15:36 PM EST

... especially in the extreme case of a legally lethal suicide-by-choice pill, is less opportunity for the afflicted to be fleeced by the medical community.


I hope you're not... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Thanin on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:52:41 PM EST

vilifying the entire medical community. Having worked at a hospital for years, I only ever saw compassion when dealing with the tragedy of terminal illness. No one working on the floor, directly with the patient ever saw those they were carring for as just money to be made.


: I doubt Mr. Natural was... (none / 0) (#22)
by kdog on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:45:15 PM EST

I'm confident he was speaking of the people who underpay, over work, and saddle with debt those who work on the floor caring for terminally ill patients.

Timing can be tricky. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by caseyOR on Tue May 21, 2013 at 07:29:35 PM EST

In Oregon , in addition to the 6 months or less left to live part, the person must be able to administer the drug cocktail to themselves. The drugs are given in pill form. This means that someone who wants to avail themselves of this must be careful not to wait too long. If they can no longer swallow the pills or keep them down they have waited too long.

Oregon first passed a Death with Dignity law back in the 90s. What we have learned is that not everyone who is terminal requests the drugs. Not everyone who requests the drugs uses them. Whether or not one asks for the drugs or uses them, the law provides people with some peace of mind. It gives them the power to control their own end of life.

I voted for a similar (none / 0) (#7)
by ExcitableBoy on Tue May 21, 2013 at 12:35:19 PM EST

measure in Massachusetts, but it didn't pass. Which surprised me, given the liberal nature of the state.

Brompton cocktail is (none / 0) (#9)
by fishcamp on Tue May 21, 2013 at 01:48:35 PM EST

a powerful painkiller and sedative consisting of vodka or other liquor laced with morphine and sometimes also cocaine.
Origin late 20th cent.: said to be from the name of Brompton Hospital, London, where the mixture was invented for cancer patients. Source: Apple dictionary. I actually took a slug of this stuff years ago and it didn't seem strong at all. The owner of the drink had just passed away and his mother asked me to get rid of all the meds. She told me to try it so I would know about it. Strange but true.

Where there is a Will, There is a Way (none / 0) (#10)
by squeaky on Tue May 21, 2013 at 02:39:28 PM EST

An elderly aunt of my friend was diagnosed with terminal cancer, under six months to live.. She wanted to end her life. Her doctor prescribed two drugs (morphine and valium?) and said to her: 'Do not under any circumstances take these two drugs together, because it will kill you.'

This type of thing (none / 0) (#11)
by Zorba on Tue May 21, 2013 at 03:55:06 PM EST

went on more than people realize.
Although, I think that doctors are getting more and more reluctant to do this, given the current climate.


: Yes (none / 0) (#15)
by Ga6thDem on Wed May 22, 2013 at 08:40:13 AM EST

I have a friend who was a nurse to terminal cancer patients. If you give them enough morphine to kill the pain, it also is enough to kill them. It is not as clear an issue as a lot of people think it is.

I thought something similar..... (none / 0) (#13)
by NYShooter on Tue May 21, 2013 at 10:57:39 PM EST

First, the "must be able to administer him/her self," seems too restricting. I'm sure we can all think of situations where the patient is, "of sound mind," but not "sound body."

As to, "two physicians," I was thinking a little broader, possibly two physicians (one psychiatrist and one General practitioner.) Also, a clergyman, lifelong friend, teacher; in other words, a small committee of dedicated, intelligent humanitarians.

Why a committee? This should be (none / 0) (#14)
by caseyOR on Wed May 22, 2013 at 01:10:32 AM EST

a decision made by the person who is dying. The point of the mandated two physicians is to ensure that the person has less than six months to live and is making an informed decision free from pressure by anyone.

The dying person can certainly choose to talk with whomever they want when making this decision. They can also choose to discuss it with no one other than the two mandated physicians.

The self-administer part is to ensure that no one tries to take the life of someone who is not ready to die. Also, here doctors were concerned that administering the lethal drugs themselves would violate their oath as physicians.


The Clergy ? (none / 0) (#16)
by ScottW714 on Wed May 22, 2013 at 09:01:59 AM EST

They are the fools for the most part that object to this kinds of decisions that whole hell thing and all...

Two doctors are plenty to ensure the prognosis is accurate. I doubt anyone who is ending their life early to avoid insurmountable pain is really of sound mind. Both choices suck and setting up some committee with a religious aspect, or other people who know nothing about medicine is fine if that's what you want, but shouldn't be a requirement.


: If my response to casey hadn't been deleted (none / 0) (#17)
by NYShooter on Wed May 22, 2013 at 11:01:01 AM EST

you would have read that I said, "by the patient's choice," no "setting up a committee." If a dying patient feels comforted by his pastor, what's wrong with that?

Wow. googling this subject has led to some (none / 0) (#19)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 22, 2013 at 03:43:11 PM EST

unusual info.

It looks like the most humane thing VT could do is give the requester a shotgun or a some sticks of dynamite, followed by what I would assume is heroin (illegal drugs).

That said, as I've discussed before, there was a heroin overdose and death near my house last year, and the decedent lived for a number of hours after the injection. During that time it was clear to those with him that he was in some distress, though whether he was conscious of it or not I have no idea.

This page recommends drugs combined with a plastic bag over the head.

: Well, gee, sarc (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by Zorba on Wed May 22, 2013 at 05:51:34 PM EST

that's some.....interesting reading you found......{backing away slowly}.

SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#25)
by CaptHowdy on Tue Aug 18, 2015 at 08:16:48 AM EST

hitting many threads