Nevada witnesses strong opposition to AB 346 medical aid in dying bill

In a heated session of the Nevada Assembly Select Committee on End-of-Life Care, passionate voices clashed over the controversial Assembly Bill 346, which proposes medical aid in dying for terminally ill patients. The meeting, held on April 2, 2025, drew a diverse group of speakers, each sharing personal stories and professional insights that highlighted the complexities surrounding end-of-life choices.

One speaker, a physician, raised concerns about the accuracy of prognoses in terminal cases, citing a study indicating that doctors misjudge life expectancy 50% of the time. He argued that patients, like former President Jimmy Carter, who lived for years beyond their prognosis, could be denied valuable time if assisted dying becomes an option. He expressed a moral dilemma, stating that the bill would force him to inform patients about assisted dying, conflicting with his Hippocratic oath to do no harm.

Jason Onaso, a pastoral care provider, emphasized the importance of comprehensive palliative care over assisted suicide. He argued that true compassion involves addressing the root causes of suffering rather than offering a quick exit. He warned that the bill presents a false choice between unbearable suffering and death, urging lawmakers to invest in holistic care solutions instead.

The emotional weight of the discussion was palpable as speakers shared personal experiences with terminal illness. One survivor of cancer recounted the fear and depression that accompany a terminal diagnosis, cautioning against the financial incentives that might lead insurers to favor assisted dying over treatment. He called for the issue to be put to a public vote rather than decided by legislators.

Deandra Hammond, a parent of a disabled young woman, voiced strong opposition to the bill, arguing it poses a significant risk to the disability community. She highlighted the potential for coercion and the need for mental health support rather than a pathway to death. Her sentiments echoed a broader concern that the bill could undermine the dignity and rights of vulnerable populations.

As the meeting progressed, the committee heard from medical professionals who shared their experiences with patients seeking aid in dying. Some expressed skepticism about the motivations behind such requests, suggesting that many patients might be driven by feelings of hopelessness rather than genuine desire to end their lives.

The discussions underscored a critical question: Should Nevada prioritize expanding palliative care and hospice services, or should it embrace a legislative approach that offers assisted dying as a solution? As the committee deliberates, the voices of those affected by terminal illness and their advocates continue to resonate, urging a careful examination of the implications of such a profound decision on the fabric of compassionate care.