End-of-life-care option bill in New Hampshire stirs conversation on death
Published: 02-04-2025 12:01 PM |
At age 75, Rep Bob Lynn says he loves life. But he knows he’s no “spring chicken” and his days are finite.
The former chief justice of the state Supreme Court is the prime sponsor of House Bill 254, known as “The New Hampshire End of Life Freedom Act,” which gives terminally ill adults the choice to take control of their final days and end their own life with a dose of lethal medication.
“As I stand here now, I don’t know if I would ever actually do it,” said Lynn. “But I think that when the end comes and I am really in great pain or distress I ought to have the option to make that choice.”
If the legislation passes, terminally ill individuals aged 18 and over with a prognosis of less than six months to live will be able to receive medications to end their lives on their own terms.
It comes with a long list of requirements that two health care providers must verify, including that they have healthy mental capacity, are aware of alternative options and are competent to self-administer the drugs.
Opponents warned it could encourage suicide, be misused and send a harmful message that people with disabilities are a burden.
Acknowledging concerns about potential misuse, especially among vulnerable populations, Lynn argued that every law carries risks, whether it’s gun ownership, privacy rights or free speech, and that doesn’t mean those rights should be taken away from everyone.
Michelle Flynn, a retired internal medicine physician from Bedford, said allowing terminally ill patients to end their lives opens the door to death as a treatment option.
Article continues after...
Yesterday's Most Read Articles






She said with such legislation “people’s lives become tied to the economic situation of their illness” rather than the compassionate care they need.
“Do no harm to strongly suggest that doctors should not participate in killing their patients,” said Flynn. “A physician is there to shepherd a person through their life, even in the difficult times, and there’s so much room for improvement with palliative care and hospice care.”
This isn’t the first time New Hampshire lawmakers have considered an end-of-life options bill. Last year, a similar effort failed in the Senate.
An early attempt was made in 2015 with a bill to establish a committee to examine the positive and negative consequences of such decisions. However, the study committee was prevented from becoming law when then-Gov. Maggie Hassan vetoed the proposal.
Under this bill, physicians are not obligated to provide end-of-life care if they find it uncomfortable.
The hearing, which lasted hours Wednesday, forced an often-avoided conversation about death.
For Brenda Murray of Durham, having the option is personal. She watched her sister suffer for two years after surgery for a cancerous throat tumor. Her sister needed round-the-clock care, breathing through a tube in her throat and eating through another tube.
“Her time was painful to watch,” Murray, 85, said. “I do not want to experience death like my sister.”
Her sister died last year.
The procedure is viewed by those like Murray as offering families the chance to avoid watching their loved ones endure a painful, inevitable end, sometimes even suicide and instead gives them dignity in death.
Even though the bill has some safeguards in place like excluding a patient who is initially quadriplegic and later develops a terminal illness from receiving the drugs due to potential physical limitations — such as picking up medication, holding a straw for ingestion, or pouring it into their feeding tube — it still raises concerns about accessibility and equity.
Many in the veteran and disability community strongly oppose the bill.
Lisa Beaudoin of Temple, founder of Strategies for Disability Equity, worries it would worsen the discrimination disabled people already face in health care. She has often heard that physicians refuse treatment to those with disabilities because they say that their time and resources can be better used to treat other patients.
Supporters argue that safeguards are in place — it’s a voluntary choice, and only the patient can administer the medication. But Beaudoin isn’t convinced.
“Health disparity populations frequently never have bodily autonomy in the first place because of these healthcare inequities,” said Beaudoin at a press conference. “When there are abuses, the dead cannot report being coerced.”