The state Senate on Thursday approved a bill that would allow physicians in California to prescribe lethal doses of drugs for terminally ill patients who want to hasten their deaths.
Democratic state Sens. Lois Wolk of Davis and Bill Monning of Carmel modeled their End of Life Option Act after the voter-approved law that took effect in 1997 in Oregon. Act after the voter-approved law that took effect in 1997 in Oregon.
The measure would allow mentally competent adults with six months or less to live the option to request prescription medication that they can take to end their life.
“SB 128 is about how we die in California,” Wolk (D-Davis) told her colleagues, adding allowing the terminally ill to get fatal doses of drugs “will allow them to voluntarily die in peace.”
The measure was approved on a party line vote of 23-14.
Republican Sen. John Moorlach of Irvine said the practice is not moral.
“I call it assisted suicide. For me it’s unconscionable and I can’t be a party to it,” Moorlach said during the emotional floor debate.
The legislation includes safeguards against abuse. It would require two separate physicians to confirm the patient’s prognosis of six months or less to live and that the patient has the mental competency to make healthcare decisions.
The patient would have to make two oral requests by the patient to a physician, a minimum of 15 days apart, with two witnesses attesting to the request. The medication must be self-administered. In addition, the bill creates felony penalties for coercing or forging a request.
SB 128 received a boost last week when the California Medical Assn. dropped its opposition, saying it would allow physicians to decide whether to participate in the assisting of deaths by prescribing drugs.
The measure continues to be opposed by many physicians, who say their role is to heal patients, and by religious leaders and activists for the disabled who fear that group may be put under duress to end their lives prematurely.
Groups in opposition include the California Catholic Conference, the Medical Oncology Assn. of Southern California and the California Disability Alliance.
Still, the proposal has gained momentum since Californian Brittany Maynard, 29, received national attention last year by moving to Oregon and ending her life there after months of debilitating and painful effects from brain cancer. Maynard’s husband and mother have lobbied for the California bill, saying it was one of her dying wishes.
In a 17-year period ending last year, 1,327 Oregon residents asked for aid in dying prescriptions and 859 patients had died from ingesting medication, according to a study by that state’s health officials. Since Oregon adopted its law, medical aid in dying has also been authorized in Washington state, Montana, Vermont and New Mexico.
No terminal person should ever be encouraged to die by the State or anyone else, however that said, in my way of thinking helping a terminal patient end their life in dignity and according to their own terms, when all that is left of their life is pain and suffering is loving and compassionate.
Again, its only my opinion, but I think its beyond the scope of government to get in the way of that final decision. If they do….that is immoral.
It’s important to note that nobody is telling any terminally ill patient who believes it is a sin to hasten their inevitable death. That is and ought to be, their choice, made according to their religious beliefs. However, they should not use government to impose their religious beliefs on other patients who would rather take another path when their time comes.
We’ve been doing this (assisting in death) for decades and then pretending we’re really not. That’s being morally weak and a bit hypocritical too.
Hospice care can give large doses of morphine to suffering patients that hastens their death. This is done with the full understanding by the patient and the family members, but its kept low-key to avoid trouble with the law. That’s wrong and its not moral either, nobody should be at risk here if its done right. We should all be grown ups about death. We should just be open about it and we should want to ease the tension and guilt on the family and patient.
Nobody should be punished for compassionate end of life assistance…in my opinion.
Again, if you do not wish that compassionate care assistance, that’s your choice and we should respect your beliefs.
There’s been no rush to do away with old grandpa or grandma using the state to take them out to save a buck or for the heirs to get their money. That’s pure evil and such abuse should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, I think our current medical rules/laws provide for that safeguard, its worked well in a number of state. So, that argument just hasn’t held up, but we should remain watchful just in case. The list of states recognizing that we need this kind of law is growing. I support CA’s decision to allow for this out in the open…finally, its about time.
One more little opinion: Politics should have no place in who supports or opposes this bill, but obviously it does. That’s a shame, but being on the wrong side of issues like this that have hurt the republican party.
It’s about time we had a law to help those who want the help so desperately.
In my life’s experience with some patients suffering from brain cancer, or other terminal issues that require mechanical assisted living I would not say all physicians have the absolute best interest of their patients in mind.
What alternative to a dignified passing is there, drugs to ease pain, often creating a lifeless hull of the person does not equate to any quality of life.
And what is the answer other than a selective time of passing when the person who is in this state of decay is so tired of being that empty shell on tubes and diapers, existing on moist sponges and not much more.
I have watched this prolonged spiraling death and saw the despair in the eyes of the person dying. At first you just hope for a miracle, then you just hope for their suffering to end, and when the realization sets in, you just pray for a merciful ending, for them and their loved ones.
Especially when the dying request it.
Agree 100%, Jack!
I only have two concerns: 1. This law opens a door that could be expanded in future giving the state too much power and authority and, 2. The state mandating that all physicians participate in the practice.
Neither is likely to happen any time soon but then forty years ago, when the Roe v. Wade decision came down through the courts it was sold to the public on the premise that abortion would be rare, the thought of termination after six-eight weeks was abhorrent to most people, and the state didn’t condone and protect termination late in pregnancy as it now does. The thought that a school district would have the power to bypass parental authority and assist a minor in obtaining an abortion was unthinkable.
Once the door is opened changes in attitudes and principles also occur.
Just something to consider as we plunge more and more toward a world devoid of people with respect for bright moral lines and a reverence for life.
I don’t wish to impose my religious beliefs on anyone. Having said that, what about the moral values of the secular? How do we hold them accountable if they can scream religious imposition any time they don’t get their way? How far can we, or should we go before we’ve morally crossed the line as citizens?
As Jack wrote the practice of dignified end of life has been going on quietly between physician and patient/patients family for some time.
People are responsible for their own experiences and life. I don’t think the state should get in the way of a citizen seeking early termination if they can find a doctor who is willing to do it but I also have concerns about the states involvement.
I too agree with you 100% Jack. The gov’t should not be involved with the very personal decision of how one chooses to live their life or how they decide to end it, as long as it does NOT impede on the rights of others. Obviously, a terminally ill person should have the right to choose how they live their final days.
I have known a young person who chose to end his life with the help of his doctor and the blessing of his parents, because he knew the suffering he would go through. My own son begged me to not let them do a tracheotomy on him because he had seen his friends loose their ability to talk.
If he had had the tracheotomy he would have lived longer. Not having it put an additional strain on his heart so at the age of 31 he passed away from a massive heart attack. But, during his final years he graduated from UC Berkeley, worked for the Berkeley city council coordinating with builders on ADA compliance, volunteered for the Center for Living with Death and Dying and established a nonprofit organization for Adults with Muscular Dystrophy.
None of what he accomplished would have been possible if he’d had that tracheotomy. So in theory he chose how he was going to die AND how he was going to live. He alone was in control of his quality of life, even though his life span was shortened by a couple of years, maybe. He’d been in ICU four times for six-eight weeks each for pneumonia. He was put in an iron lung and had to have his lungs suctioned out every day. He’d suffered enough and still today there is no cure.
That is a sad, but also wonderful story, of family, courage and love. Thank you Peggy for sharing that with us.
Well said Tina. The gov’t/state should not be involved. Period!
Only the person and their family can make these decisions. Case by case. I would support a properly written bill that allows this and protects abuse by greedy family members and/or institutions.
I agree.
We can not deny a person rightfully making this decision because it “opens the door” I think the mere fact we all can basically agree here shows that the morality of such a law being abused would never be tolerated.
Morality at it’s core is something everybody here holds dear to their hearts.
Let us just hope none of us have suck a decision before us in the future.
Sorry Jack if my last comment made you sad and was TMI. Since it was “normal” for me I forget sometimes how different my normal can be to others.
We had made several friends through the Muscular Dystrophy Assoc. One family had four children and three of them had Duchene Dystrophy; two boys and a girl. Their normal was beyond my ability to understand. Their mom had to have super powers to deal with everything. Their dad had bailed out long ago.
All I can say Peggy is you are a rock. Any child would be lucky to have you for a Mom.
Dewey, Chris, always nice when we can agree on something and it doesn’t get much more important than this.
There are few things in life where we have total control, but our passing ought to be one of them.
Oregon’s law seems to have plenty of safe guards against convenience killings. However, that doesn’t mean that we not should be watchful of abuses – we owe that to the dying too.
Reply to post #13
“However, that doesn’t mean that we not should be watchful of abuses”
And as Tina points out “Government intervention” which will become a political football.
Re Tina : “1. This law opens a door that could be expanded in future giving the state too much power and authority and, 2. The state mandating that all physicians participate in the practice.”
Yes.
Re Jack : “There are few things in life where we have total control, but our passing ought to be one of them.”
No. Our passing is under our total control except for people unable or unwilling to put a gun to their head, take poison, jump off a bridge, etc. There are many ways to commit suicide.
A law that allows physicians to give terminal patients in chronic pain an easy way out is a good idea, but I have the same concerns as Tina.