Mitchell Simon is a professor emeritus at UNH Law. He lives in Contoocook. 

Today, Thursday, March 20, the New Hampshire House will vote on HB 254 — the Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD) bill — after it passed in the House Judiciary Committee.

I have participated in the debate over end-of-life care for almost 30 years and have watched with increasing frustration as opponents raise the same abstract fears without presenting any evidence that these concerns have occurred in any of the 10 states that have adopted medical assistance in dying, the first of which passed 26 years ago. I simply ask that each of our legislators consider the questions raised in this article before they vote on this bill.

By way of background, I am an emeritus professor at UNH Law, where I taught courses on health law and legal ethics for over 30 years. I also established and administered, from approximately 1988 to 1998, the law school’s Institute on Health, Law and Ethics. For over 20 years, I served on Concord Hospital’s Ethics Committee. Prior to that, I spent 15 years as a legal aid lawyer representing low-income elders and folks with disabilities in health matters, many of which involved care for dying clients.

I understand the fears of those in the disability community. In my legal aid work, I saw the lack of access for folks with disabilities that animate the concerns expressed. I hope when legislators hear this emotional and heartfelt testimony, they are informed about the pain and injustice described. They are profoundly relevant when considering insurance reform and Medicaid policy.

But before applying the legitimate concerns of the disability community in analyzing MAID, legislators should determine whether adoption of this humane and carefully tailored bill would have any negative effect on existing care and treatment for persons with disabilities. They will find the lack of any evidence of further harm caused by adoption of MAID.

For years, disability advocates have pointed to the amorphous “slippery slope” argument that if we start down this path we will end up either involuntarily killing or further ignoring persons with disability. The slippery slope is, in truth, a vague concept without any solid mooring. More importantly, there is no evidence of such “slippage” in the states that have adopted medical aid in dying.

More recently, advocates have presented a new argument that to allow MAiD before fixing the health care system for all, and especially those with disabilities, would be “leapfrogging” over the system’s problems. Applying this analysis would mean that the legitimate interests of the majority of New Hampshire residents who want to make their own choices at the end of life will be held hostage to complex health care reform unlikely to happen in the near term. That is simply an unacceptable position.

In summary, the heartfelt testimony on the consequences of our current health care policy on persons with disabilities should inform discussions on health care and Medicaid policy. In terms of HB 254, legislators must look to the experience in the 10 other U.S. states that have adopted medical aid in dying, with virtually the same safeguards as are in New Hampshire’s legislation, to see if any compelling reason for concern about MAiD.

If they find MAiD works without causing any additional harm to persons with disabilities, they should vote ‘yes’ on HB 254. Doing so will allow those of us who face extraordinarily painful deaths and wish to have control of the end of our lives for ourselves and our families some peace of mind.

Based on the descriptions of those in Oregon who have received the medication, many of whom ultimately decide not to use it, having some control of one’s final days is the greatest gift to the dying and to their families. Now is the time to make it state policy.