The "doctor assisted suicide" bill recently passed by California's Assembly was signed in to law by Governor Jerry Brown on October 5th. The law will take affect 90 days after the Assembly ends its special session on health care. It's not clear when that will happen, but could be as early as January, 2016. Governor Brown, a life-long Catholic and former seminarian clearly put a lot of study and thought into the issue before signing the bill. He explained his process in a statement released with the signing in which he stated:
"I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn't deny that right to others."
The new law is modeled on one in place in Oregon since 1997. It was Californian Brittany Maynard's story who, dying of cancer, moved to Oregon to take advantage of its law that spurred the current support for the concept in the Golden State.
The San Francisco Chronicle listed the following provisions of the new law:
- Allows a doctor to prescribe a lethal dose of medication under certain narrow circumstances.
- Patients who receive the prescription must be mentally competent.
- Two California doctors must independently agree that such a patient has no more than six months to live.
- It is the patient’s choice whether to take the drugs.
- Patients must affirm their intention to do so 48 hours in advance.
- Patients must take the prescription on their own, without help.
- The law expires in 10 years unless renewed.
In the meantime opponents to the law are not giving up. A coalition of parties driven by religious concerns, medical questions, and elder abuse issues are exploring ways to have the law repealed. Opponents fear that doctors may be wrong when projecting someone has 6 months or less to live. Others fear caregivers or relatives may pressure disabled or elderly people to forego treatment in favor of suicide. Another concern would be insurance companies taking advantage of poor patients by offering to pay for life-ending drugs in lieu of more expensive treatments that might extend their lives.
Of the objections all but the religious concerns seem already addressed in the law, and in the track record in Oregon, with no such abuses discovered in its 18 year history. Constitutionally, the State cannot address issues of religion in making law.
However, few bills are perfect as initially conceived. With such a controversial law affecting life and death, and so many opponents keeping watch, the possibility for future amendments to improve AB2x-15 seems more likely than repeal. It's much more difficult to take away a right once it's established.