"My goal for the committee is the committee makes a decision before we leave for town meeting whether to move forward or not," said Rep. Ann Pugh, D-South Burlington, chairwoman of the House Human Services Committee. "To me what is most important is people feel the process has been fair and open and multiple voices on this issue are heard."

Besides hearing Friday from former Oregon Gov. Barbara Roberts, who favors the initiative, and leading opponent Dr. Robert Orr, the committee will hold a public hearing next Tuesday to gauge the public's view.

What seems to be clear is that the week's worth of hearings will be full of emotion and probably unpredictable. Opponents and proponents don't follow predictable ideological patterns. Many Democrats support the bill but many don't. The same holds true for Republicans, although members of the GOP appear to be more likely to be opposed.

"It's a nonpartisan issue," Pugh said. "It's a non-geographic issue. It's a personal issue."

There are five co-sponsors on the bill -- two Democrats, a Republican, a Progressive and an independent. The Republican, Rep. Richard Hube of Londonderry, said he consulted with constituents, friends and clergy before deciding to sign on to the bill.

He concluded that patients with terminal conditions should have the option of taking their own lives if they choose and give informed consent. "Ultimately, it's about choice," Hube said.

But many worry whether there truly would be choice for everyone. Advocates for the disabled strongly oppose the bill. "This bill is an insurance bill to protect doctors and insurance companies from any responsibilities if a `request' for physician assisted suicide goes wrong," says the legislative platform of the Vermont Coalition for Disability Rights.

The Vermont Right to Life Committee is worried that only a week is being devoted to the bill before the committee is expected to vote. "This is not a simple little bill," said Mary Hahn Beerworth. "This is a sea change in public policy."

She and others -- on both sides of the debate -- believe there may be a better chance for the bill to advance this year than in previous sessions when it was introduced. There are more supporters on key committees.

But there are also some key legislators who aren't sure whether the bill is a good idea. "It's one of those issues, I've done a lot of soul searching on," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Richard Sears, D-Bennington. "I am truly undecided. If I had to vote today, I'd vote no."

Only one state permits doctors to assist with a patient's death. Oregon adopted the policy a decade ago.

Vermont's bill is based on the Oregon law. It would authorize a doctor to prescribe a fatal dose of medicine to a patient nearing death who had given informed consent.

"It's a very common thing for people to ask, `Why am I still alive,'" said Dr. Diana Barnard, a Middlebury family practitioner. "I'm really advocating for people to have a choice and their own option to decide what dignity means for them at the end of life."

Signalling how sensitive the debate is, the terms people use in describing the proposal depend on where they stand on the issue. Opponents frequently describe it as physician-assisted suicide. Proponents once called it death with dignity, although they've now shifted to "patient choice and control at end of life" because they believe it doesn't carry any judgments.

Gov. Jim Douglas said he supported the concept of death with dignity, but not physician assisted suicide.

"We need to make it dignified, we need to make it pain-free," Douglas said in an interview. "But to empower physicians -- who take an oath to alleviate pain and do no harm -- to hasten death is a step in the wrong direction."

Barnard said it was wrong to describe the proposal as suicide. "Suicide is a really impulsive, tragic action that's usually done in secret and ends a life that's yet to be fully lived," she said. "(The bill) is about affirmation, choice and control. The whole experience is totally different."