KRISTIN CONSILLIO / KCONSILLIO@STARADVERTISER.COM
State Health Director Bruce Anderson congratulates John Radcliffe, the first Hawaii patient with terminal cancer to request a lethal prescription under Hawaii’s Our Care, Our Choice Act, at a news conference Wednesday.
Select an option below to continue reading this premium story.
Already a Honolulu Star-Advertiser subscriber? Log in now to continue reading.
The euphemistically named “Our Care, Our Choice” Act legalizing medical aid in dying is deeply flawed and should be revoked.
The Star-Advertiser mentioned one of the guidelines requiring two witnesses, only one of whom can be a beneficiary (“Aid-in-dying, pesticide ban laws to watch,” Star-Advertiser, Our View, Jan. 2). What are they supposedly “witnessing”? They cannot attest that the subject of the request is mentally competent because they are not qualified to do so, but only that he or she signed the request in their presence.
Normally, a beneficiary should not be a witness to a will because it raises a question of conflict of interest, but the new law almost invites conflict of interest by specifically allowing a beneficiary to be one of the witnesses. Is this really a “safeguard?”
Who will intervene on behalf of someone who is fraudulently induced to sign away his or her life? Maybe we should just let them quietly die.
Edward D. Lasky
Hawaii Kai
Click here to read more Letters to the Editor.