Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/26/1996 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 371 - RIGHTS OF TERMINALLY ILL PERSONS The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Committee was HB 371. CHAIR JAMES announced the House State Affairs Committee would only be hearing from those that were not able to testify on Thursday, March 21, 1996. CHAIR JAMES called on the first witness in Juneau, Michael Kirk. Number 0361 MICHAEL KIRK said those that heard him testify on the pension fund last week might wish today that he was terminally ill, and those that heard him testify today on the rights of the terminally ill might wish he were pensioned and retired. He stated, amongst the Eskimo people, the elders sacrificed their lives by their own free will through the cold and hunger. They were not considered suicidal but honored for their actions. The majority of people who requested to end their lives were doing so for their family and community. He said according to Scripture, greater love had no man than he or she sacrificed his life for the life of another. The truth was elusive to human beings, so he wondered when the experts lectured, what was the truth? He explained, soldiers, policemen, and firemen freely and willingly sacrificed their lives for others. Furthermore, fathers, mothers, siblings and even pets sacrificed their lives for others. According to health care practitioners, more money was spent on the last few days of the terminally ill, against their will, than what was spent on keeping the person healthy. He wondered if it was possible that the experts had another purpose than love, justice and truth. He maintained that purpose was possibly to impose their will onto the rest so that we could not exercise our free will. Please consider that today, he said. He thanked the committee members for their time. Number 0588 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER complimented Mr. Kirk on his testimony. He said it was a pure joy to listen to. He did not necessarily agree with everything he said, however. Number 0599 CHAIR JAMES said to Mr. Kirk he did a very good job of telling the committee members how he felt "from the bottom of your toes to the top of your head." She agreed with Mr. Kirk that religion was a personal contact with a higher power. It should not be imposed on others, however. The responsibility of the legislators was to balance the decisions of society and the constituents. It was difficult to vote against one's personal belief, and if it was impossible then one should not be a legislator. It was impossible to insulate a person from their religion, however. Number 0676 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN complimented Mr. Kirk on the use of the English language. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Dick Regan. Number 0698 DICK REGAN said he had long supported the concept of HB 371. He was anxious to see the bill move forward to the next committee of referral. He himself was a victim of an inoperable terminal illness. It was incidental to his interest in the bill, however. He believed it was a well drafted bill. It was conservatively drafted. The bill provided for the state regulations that were addressed in the opinion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He thanked the committee members for their consideration of this issue. He reiterated he would like to see the bill moved to the next committee of referral. CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Jay Livey, Department of Health and Social Services. Number 0811 JAY LIVEY, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Health and Social Services, presented a statement from the Administration. "The Administration supports HB 371 because an individual's decision to end one's life due to a terminal illness is intensely personal and one in which the government should not be involved." CHAIR JAMES called on the next witness in Juneau, Sid Heidersdorf. Number 0840 SID HEIDERSDORF, Representative, Alaskans For Life, said the organization was opposed to HB 371. He explained he had been to four hearing on this issue now, and quit a few people had testified that they were opposed to suicide, but were in favor of "death with dignity." He found that astonishing and disturbing because it was still suicide, a person was intentionally taking his own life or asking someone to assist him. This was indeed a physician assisted suicide bill. The recent decision by the court was not the last word, he suspected it would go to the Supreme Court. He asked the committee members to not "jump on the train" because maybe it was heading off the cliff. He asked the committee members to do what was right and not what might happen in the courts. He questioned the polls and the support of HB 371 due to the wording of the questions asked. Furthermore, the law was a teacher. He wondered what this law taught society? He replied it would teach society that suicide was morally acceptable. Suicide was a problem amongst the youth already. He called the bill terrible public policy. The supporters of HB 371 testified that they did not want other people's morals forced upon them. However, he believed this bill would affect the value system of society by involving the medical profession, health institutions and pharmacies. It was a terrible mistake to involve the doctors in killing in addition to healing. They should be limited to healing. This law would give physicians great power. He cited the country of Holland whereby the physicians were exercising their power and not the individuals. Moreover, this bill was one step from euthanasia. He called this entire issue a "slippery slope." He equated it to the Nazi concentration camps because the same logic was used. He believed those that were terminally ill deserved to have their pain managed and receive compassionate care. The law should be asking how the final days could be made better and not how to end one's life. He was offended by the term "death with dignity." It implied those that died without killing themselves died without any dignity. He asked the committee members to reject HB 371 not because of what it might lead to, but because of what it was. In conclusion, he read from a booklet in defense of euthanasia titled The Destruction of Life Devoid of Value, "the situation of imminent death is not being changed only the cause of death is being replaced by another cause which has the advantage of being painless. Legally speaking, this is no killing, only the changing of the cause of unavoidable death. In truth it is a pure healing action, the elimination of pain is also healing. This we have to conclude we are not dealing here with an established exception of the law, not to kill. We are not dealing here will an unlawful killing, but with an unprohibited human action carried out as a blessing for the suffering as a pain relief for the nearly dead since it is not done for the purpose of killing them, but to relieve suffering." The language he quoted was used as a rational for the basis of the Nazi killing programs. He said, "those who do not know history are forced to relive it." Number 1730 CHAIR JAMES announced the House State Affairs Committee would not be taking any action on this bill today. The issue would not go away, however. She felt society was already sliding down the slippery slope. Therefore, the legislature needed to determine how to slide down it with the least disastrous results. She believed the issue needed more time. She suggested talking to the people further before taking any action. Number 1779 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked Mr. Heider what his view was on the practice of the cessation of artificial life support? Number 1799 MR. HEIDER replied the organization believed that extraordinary means were not required. If the on-going practice of a community considered the use of artificial lungs, for example, as extraordinary care, then it was not required. He said that was dying from the disease which was vastly different than involving the health care profession in ending a person's life. Number 1860 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN thanked Mr. Heider for his testimony. He explained his wife had been a health care professional for many years. She had held the hand of more than one person who expired. He said there would be an exodus of health care workers from the field, if they were forced to participate in this type of activity. It took a very special person to have a job that dealt with death. He had the highest respect for those that dealt with it. He felt, philosophically, that society placed a low value on life and cited abortion as an example. He said, it further degraded human life, if it was decided it was appropriate to take the life of someone that had a few less days than the rest of us. We were all terminal. Furthermore, he was concerned about the message this bill was sending to society. It was the highest calling as a legislature to protect the sanctity of life. Number 2032 MR. HEIDER said the bill, of course, provided for a conscientious objection as a safeguard. He encouraged the committee members to read the handout titled, "International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force" fact sheet. He said the safeguards according to the fact sheet became meaningless in Holland. Number 2116 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked Chair James what the plan was for the bill? CHAIR JAMES replied she did not have an immediate plan. She was not ready to deal with the issue today, however, because there were many unanswered questions.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|