Nobody walked away happy, but everyone lived to fight another day.
That was the sentiment on all sides Thursday at the conclusion of the Vermont Senate’s epic, three-day struggle over the state’s role in end-of-life choices.
A final 22-8 vote in favor of a stripped-down version of the original so-called “death with dignity” bill Thursday afternoon masked deeper divisions in a body that was essentially evenly divided on the matter.
For the second time in as many days, Lt. Gov. Phil Scott found himself breaking a tied 15-15 vote on a crucial amendment. Again, he sided with a coalition of Republicans and Democrats who favored divorcing the state from the process of prescribing life-ending drugs to people with fewer than six months to live. Instead, the narrow majority opted simply to indemnify doctors and family members who take part in the process.
That approach was clearly unsatisfactory to those who have spent a decade fighting for a more comprehensive approach modeled on a landmark 1994 Oregon law legalizing physician-assisted suicide. But after losing another amendment fight Thursday, several such advocates voted for the underlying bill anyway, with an eye to improving it in negotiations with the Vermont House.
“I voted for the bill yesterday to make sure that it would keep going. Today I voted for it because if the bill were defeated, that would be it. It wouldn’t go to the House,” said Sen. Claire Ayer (D-Addison), the Health and Welfare Committee chairwoman who was among the original bill’s biggest advocates. “I want the discussion to continue.”
Sen. Dick Sears (D-Bennington), the Judiciary Committee chairman who has fought the legislation for years, expressed mixed emotions about Thursday’s outcome.
“I’d have rather seen the bill die,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a victory for anybody. But I think the system worked as it was designed. All sides were heard and, in the end, the bill passed. I would’ve preferred it hadn’t passed, but it did.”
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
This is, of course, democracy at work. Very few other states (and federal government) are able to have a long discussion over the facts, listen fully to the other side, let their opionions be known, and vote in what they believe to be right. Watered down and ready to come back in the future for this vote. It is the right vote for now.
There is another view. A view that says, a bill that was never vetted by a legislative committee, and was debated relatively briefly by 30 people, is not democracy at work. At least the original bill was vetted (not approved, but vetted) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. This bill, which is completely different from the original bill, was introduced on the floor, in the middle of the debate on the original bill. There has been no committee review of this bill, no research on this bill, and no testimony on this bill. Nobody in the Senate truly knows what its consequences might be. Is passing such a bill “democracy at work,” or an exercise in legislative irresponsibility to get something out the door quickly? Shouldn’t a piece of legislation that could result in the termination of lives go through the legislative committee process and be debated more than for a few hours?
The original bill was also vetted AND approved by the Health and Welfare Committee. Galbraith’s rewriting of the entire bill on the floor, with the support of the anti-S77 crowd, ignored the labourious process the committees had gone through.
Fortunately, this Senate action is far from the final step. The House will now put the bill through an extensive process of hearings, committee work and floor debate – which is very likely to result in a bill much closer to the legislation that came out of the Senate committee process. Assuming it passes the House, it will then end up with a conference committee and a final debate and vote again in both chambers.
In the end there will be plenty of opportunity for sober second thought and rewriting to undo the rash actions of Senator Galbraith and bill opponents.