MONTPELIER — Lawmakers on Wednesday defeated a measure that would have allowed doctors to help terminally ill patients end their lives.

The decision was a surprise to some members of the House of Representatives, who said before the vote they couldn't predict the outcome. The bill had support and opposition from across the political spectrum.

Ultimately, after four hours of emotional and heated floor debate, the bill was defeated by a vote of 63-82.

"Perhaps under the right circumstances I might want this law available for myself," said Rep. Thomas Koch, R-Barre. But he voted against the measure, saying he was "separating my own views … from what I view as my duty as a representative and my duty to represent the people who sent me here and who I have heard from in overwhelming numbers."

He added, "There may come a time when society is ready to accept this social policy. I don't think that time is now for the state of Vermont."

If the bill had become law, it would have allowed terminally ill patients who had less than six months to live and were mentally sound to receive a prescription from a doctor that would be fatal when self-administered.

Advocates said the Vermont proposal had plenty of safeguards; for instance, it would have required patients to undergo a psychological exam, to make two requests to end their lives, and to take the medication themselves.

Bob Ullrich, president of the End of Life Choices Vermont, said he was disappointed by the bill's failure. Its approval would have resulted in better relationships between patients and doctors, more open conversations about care as patients are dying, and better hospice care, he said.

"There are a lot of really good things that would have come out of this legislation," he said.

But opponents said that the bill sent the "wrong message" to people considering suicide and could be a "slippery slope" toward bad policy for the state. In addition, advocates for the disabled said some patients could be pressured into ending their own lives.

Vermont's bill was based on one enacted into law in Oregon. Over nine years in that state, 456 terminal patients have received prescriptions and 292 have used them. That means that in Vermont, with a smaller population, only six people a year likely would have used the measure, advocates said.

In the end, however, the debate may have turned as much on the moral and ethical questions the bill raised as it did on the number of people who would have used it to end their lives.

The Catholic Church was among the groups that opposed the measure, while former governors of Vermont and Oregon and other prominent citizens supported it.

Many lawmakers said they were making their decisions based on their own experiences.

"I will be voting yes in honor of my mother," said Rep. Denise Barnard, D-Richmond. Barnard, whose mother died of cancer, welled up as she talked on the floor.

Rep. Patricia O'Donnell, R-Vernon, voted no — in part, she said, because of her father, who was disabled when she was four years old and died of cancer years later. "I spent my life growing up outside intensive care," she said. Despite his suffering, her father never complained and lived for many years, she said. Another reason for her "no" vote, she said, was the bill lacked clarity.

The measure drew support and opposition from all sides. Rep. David Zuckerman, a Progressive from Burlington, and Rep. Richard Hube, a Londonderry Republican, were lead supporters.

"I'm disappointed," said Hube, who said he wrestled with the issue for some time before making up his mind. "I talked to a lot of different people with a lot of different perspectives. Ultimately it came down to choice."

Contact Louis Porter at louis.porter@rutlandherald.com