As the Washington Post reported, a recent CNN Democratic Town Hall in New Hampshire featured Hillary Clinton’s response to a question about physician-assisted dying from Jim Kinhan, an 81 year old man who described himself as a Clinton supporter and as a person who is “walking with colon cancer with the word terminal very much in my vocabulary.” In response to Kinhan’s carefully worded question about what Clinton, as president, could do to “advance the respectful conversation that is needed around this personal choice,” Clinton acknowledged that she’d never been asked this question before, at least not in a public forum, although it seems clear that she recognized that the question was about physician-assisted dying.
It’s not surprising that this came up for the first time in New Hampshire, which borders Vermont, whose Oregon-type provision for physician-assisted dying has been in place since 2013, and Massachusetts, where similar legislation is pending after a ballot measure was narrowly defeated in 2012. Kinhan has written about his support for pending legislation in New Hampshire that would commission a study of the issue.
Clinton’s response was far from a polished sound bite, but the transcript suggests that she views aid-in-dying as a question of public importance, one that people “deserve to understand” whether or not it is an option they would choose for themselves. She concluded her remarks in a way that those who follow this complex issue will recognize as thoughtful – interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and attentive to evidence, experience, and diverse moral perspectives:
“So I don’t have any easy or glib answer for you.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.