This must not be the end of the discussion — even one that has gone on for as long as this one.

It now appears likely House Bill 2739, which would legalize medical aid in dying, will become law. Last week the House passed it, 39-12, and that has been the chamber where the proposal has met its stiffest opposition in recent years. Further, Gov. David Ige has indicated he would sign the bill.

It surely would bring great relief to many to allow a terminally ill patient a prescribed drug for ending his or her life without suffering. However, even if lawmakers and the governor enact this measure, their duty to monitor its consequences must continue.

The legislative process has not ended, of course. Opponents have offered amendments in an effort to improve the bill. One, to add a “sunset clause” enabling lawmakers to take another look in three years, should be considered.

This has been one of the most hotly debated issues ever confronted by lawmakers, in Hawaii or anywhere else. Nearly two-thirds of states have contemplated it, but only five have legalized it: Oregon was the first, in 1994, with Washington, Montana, Vermont and California following suit.

Every aspect of this provision is filled with controversy, including its name. It used to be commonly known as “physician-assisted suicide”; now “medical aid in dying” is preferred.

The rationale is that bills such as HB 2739 limit this optional path to those found by a medical practitioner to be within six months of death from a terminal illness. This is not suicide, they argue, because death is shortly to be inevitable, and the drug merely eases that end.

Others will counter that a finding of “suicide” will nullify insurance claims by the survivors, among other unintended consequences. They add that this is why the term is avoided at all costs.

They also posit that there is no way to know for certain when death will come. Even one of the bill’s most ardent supporters — retired lobbyist John Radcliffe, still under treatment for cancer considered terminal — has exceeded what doctors projected as his life expectancy by something approaching two years.

But supporters are also correct to assert that for many, many terminal patients, death will come as forecast, and it can be unendurable. Wishing and hoping for a miracle, they say, does not negate the very real suffering that can afflict terminal patients in their last days.

The House measure currently under review includes hoped-for safeguards against abuse. Among these: a waiting period of 20 days from the time the patient files a written request for the prescription; and steps to prevent coercion by someone in the patient’s circle of family and friends.

There are two witnesses required to attest to the patient’s sound mind in making the decision to seek the life-ending prescription. One of them must not be a relative, and one must not be someone entitled to a portion of the patient’s estate at their death.

Whether or not this is enough protection should be the focus of further discussion as the bill moves through the Senate.

There are plainly defensible arguments that weigh in favor of HB 2739, not the least of which is simple compassion for the dying and their loved ones. Compassion & Choices, a nonprofit advocacy group, has testified that there have been no abuses documented in the states enabling medical aid in dying.

Organization officials have cited Oregon, which has tracked the program the longest, as having maintained palliative care — provision of pain relief and comfort to a dying patient, without a life-ending drug — as a choice; hospice referrals are up.

Still, Hawaii is not Oregon, and it behooves this state to make sure that no horror-story scenarios play out here. HB 2739, if it becomes law, should be followed by state health officials with an eye on possible coercion of the terminal patient.

Among the criteria they should check is the approach taken by health insurers, which could set coverage rates to encourage medical aid-in-dying over other clinical or end-of-life treatment options.

And if lawmakers are as inclined to enact the measure as it now seems, there should be discussion about whether alternative options are sufficiently supported by this legislation. Critics have pointed to the requirement for one or more counseling sessions to be provided “as necessary.” This may not be strong enough, as mandates go.

The end of life can be an exquisitely difficult time for a dying patient and his or her loved ones. It also can be exquisitely precious, if pain can be managed properly. These final days have value, and each individual deserves his or her life to be lived in full measure.

Ultimately, it is compassion that is driving measures such as HB 2739 through the life-or-death gauntlet. But ensuring that someone is not deprived of their chance at life — that’s compassion, as well.