“It is difficult to speak about death on days such as these, as late spring lifts up dormant life and summer invites us to happier times. Some say that dusk is both the most beautiful and the most troublesome time of the day. That is why the subject of impending death, the dusk of our days, is difficult.” 

Those are the opening lines of Janet Mills’ formal remarks in enumerating the arguments for and against signing Maine’s Death with Dignity Act into law. Her poetic introduction to the decision’s explanation was most impressive not only in its effective personalizing of her legal reasoning but by its clear evidence that she had indeed taken her deliberation to heart. 

The heart of her own argument cited a Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision more than thirty years ago recognizing a patient’s “right of self-determination in matters of health care to be essential to the integrity and dignity of his person.” Legal precedent from Maine’s own judicial system. That precedent based its conclusion on an interpretation of individual autonomy set forth by John Stuart Mill: “The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” 

Though differing with J.S. Mill on the right of the individual as absolute, Janet Mills’ takeaway affirms: “I do believe it is a right that should be protected in law.” “There are those who say that what government must provide — and all that it should provide — is the protection of personal liberty to the extent that the exercise of that liberty does not infringe on the rights and security of others. The opportunity for someone of sound mind facing imminent death to avoid further suffering is viewed by some purely as an act of personal liberty, a decision with which government should not interfere.” 

Combining arch-liberal sentiments with fundamental conservative sovereignty concerns, Maine’s new governor presented a reasoned balance between the two, a balance reflecting her acceptance that: “Despite the narrowest of votes in the House of Representatives, L.D. 1313 appears to be favored by a majority of Maine people surveyed.” 

She chose not to express her own belief system or impose it upon the greater good. Unlike Maine’s most recent chief executive, in finally bringing closure to Death with Dignity’s long legislative road to established law she exampled an act of measured responsive governance and responsible administrative power rather than divisive political posturing and self-aggrandizement by means of personal fiat. 

That such a controversial issue, after so many years of legislative give and take, could arrive on her desk without her having a ready response, that she wasn’t fully up to speed, was a bit surprising. Her 11th hour need to run out a 10-day window on executive decision making remains an interesting political curiosity. Especially when compared to her otherwise proactive approach in executive influence over other legislative action. Think “Corridor.” 

Not someone at all hesitant to take leadership on issues she strongly supports, she never chose to weigh in on this truly fundamental matter of “The Way Life Should Be.” Maine definitely missed its “Dirigo” moment. 

If she had vetoed the measure it would almost certainly have stood, given the slim margin of passage in both houses. With a signature count necessary to present it as a ballot initiative having already been obtained, and with 80% of those polled supporting its enactment, the act would also almost certainly be passed by popular vote. How the legislature could have so misrepresented the will of the people is even more of a conundrum than the governor’s own personal populist disconnect. From my own observation of individual legislator opposition, it was obvious that many hadn’t actually read the bill, nor would acknowledge its actual track record where legalized in other states. Even though it doesn’t condone suicide as legally defined, as clearly stated in the legislation itself, even the governor’s impressively prepared remarks refer to it as “a law that permits the act of suicide.” Hooray for an Apples v. Oranges illogical continuance. 

Likely the majority of Mainers favoring this law also haven’t bothered to read the actual legislation but fundamentally understand the difference between willfully ending an otherwise viable life and choosing a more dignified and compassionate exit when confronted by a thoroughly unwanted certain death. 

Much is made of being pro-choice regarding when life begins, but somehow life’s end is viewed differently. One decision’s purportedly a matter solely between patient and physician, about sovereignty over one’s own body. How that reasoned right isn’t obvious in both circumstances is a continuing work in process despite Roe v. Wade being perfectly analogous to the issue of Death with Dignity. 

Thankfully, Janet Mills ultimately connected those dots. Some might see her getting behind passage when it was likely already inevitable as quintessential Susan Collins. Whatever the case, signing LD 1313 will likely remain her long-awaited gender-surmounting historic governorship’s greatest legacy. 

Gary Anderson lives in Bath.