X-Message-Number: 8794 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:27:55 -0700 From: David Brandt-Erichsen <> Subject: Arizona Bill introduced Note: See my 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. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8794