At first read my thoughts were, this is a good thing. We own ourselves, only we should be free to make choices for what's in our own best interests which also includes if we feel our lives are over. Our current society takes that individual choice away from us. If we're dying of cancer and would rather get it over quickly then linger and suffer we do not have that right. The government has taken it away from us. And should we try and fail to commit suicide then not only are we punished but society as a whole is punished as they must pay the costs of nursing someone back to health or sustaining someone who otherwise doesn't wish to be sustained.
This bill also limits assisted suicide to only people already dying who make the choice for themselves. My concern however is that over time this will be viewed as a "living" law to be reinterpreted over time. As pointed out in my earlier column "Democrats Vs The Constitution" there are those who are willing to twist language to mean not what the words meant at the time they were put to paper (or electronic media as is the case today) but to mean what they want them to mean over time.
This allows the bill to be changed over time which will open the door for things I would not want nor ever be willing to support. If the person dying who chooses to stick it out is no longer able to speak and make choices for themselves, family members may want to just get it over with and speak in their behalf ask that the person be put out of their misery early. And what is considered a terminal condition too may change over time to include any illness you will not likely recover from. This opens the door to people in a coma to be put to death because their family would rather move on, similar to what happened to Terri in FL when her husband had found a new girlfriend and wanted to get on with his life. Or perhaps someday it may even be expanded to include the handicapped who become too much of a drain on a family or worse to society.
But I digress, clearly if we studied the what ifs of every bill none would ever pass, the best we can do is discuss this bill and make sure lawmakers make it as bullet proof as possible. Ah, now there is where the real problem lies.
After several requests from the Republicans on the Committee to include public testimony, the Democrats voted to deny public input. Several people took time out of their day to offer testimony however the Democrats denied them their voice today.
Regardless of where you stand on the bill, shutting down discussion is a bad sign. That's usually a sign of hiding something or fearing you do not have public support.
Once again the Democratic party comes off as the party with the attitude that they know what's best for you so whether you agree with them or not you should just shut up and let them do what they feel is best.
Steve picked up on part of the bill I had not read in full yet which actually confirms that my what ifs are not worries of the future but current concerns. Perhaps this is why Democrats do not want the scrutiny that comes with a public hearing.