Lawmakers withdraw the controversial California bill days before Senate hearings
For decades, DREDF has opposed laws legalizing assisted suicide and fought efforts to weaken safeguards in states where assisted suicide is already available.
DREDF and other nationally prominent disability organizations believe that laws that expand assisted suicide send the wrong message about people with disabilities. That is – that enabling death is an appropriate response to disability and disability-related needs.
We fight instead for a world in which people with disabilities, including people with progressive physical disabilities and dementia, have access to essential health care services and a full range of community long-term services and supports to enable them to live meaningful lives with dignity and respect.
We know that such a world is not yet realized for many.
Senate Bill 1966, introduced on April 9, 2024, by Senator Catherine Smith Blakespear, sought to expand California’s End of Life Option Act (“EOLA”) to make assisted suicide available to people with dementia and people without a terminal prognosis. In a letter opposing the bill, DREDF stressed how such a dramatic expansion would disturb EOLA’s balanced framework and make California home to the nation’s most sweeping and unchecked aid-in-dying policies.
Specific points made by DREDF in its opposition letter included:
EOLA’s requirement that a person have a terminal condition expected to result in death within 6 months is an essential safeguard to prevent harm.
Nine states (including California) and the District of Columbia have enacted aid-in-dying laws. All of them require that the person seeking physician-assisted death have a prognosis of six months or less to live, the same prognosis that establishes eligibility for hospice care. The six-month requirement sets a standard and communicates the message that physician-assisted death should not be used as an alternative to appropriate physical and psychosocial care, including pain management, symptom relief, and social supports and engagement, throughout the stages of life. It prevents harm to people who have recently acquired disabilities and who are vulnerable to suicidal thoughts—often fueled by society’s view of disability as tragic and worse than death—that are likely to lessen with time and supports.
The proposal that assisted suicide be made available to people with dementia is unprecedented in the United States and bad policy for California
As written, SB 1196 would make assisted suicide available to any individual with a diagnosis of dementia, regardless of stage, so long as they have capacity. In other words, it would make it lawful for people to immediately request a physician-assisted death upon receiving a diagnosis of dementia, even when they still have years of life ahead of them. No other state that has authorized assisted suicide has opened the door to individuals with a diagnosis of dementia or any other mental health diagnosis. California should not be the first.
Dementia is often misdiagnosed and is a condition about which many in our society have fears and misconceptions. Making assisted suicide available to people immediately upon a diagnosis would be a recipe for disaster. It could also decrease interest and incentives for research in the care of people with dementia.
We don’t have sufficient data on use of assisted suicide in California, preventing a meaningful assessment of the law and underscoring the risks of expansion
Meaningful evaluation of EOLA requires that California understand the reasons why people chose physician-assisted death; whether it be social stigma, isolation, lack of access to supportive care and treatment services, or pain and suffering. It also requires that we understand whether and how abuses or coercion are occurring. However, California does not collect enough data or provide enough oversight to meaningfully evaluate the practice.
Without sufficient data collection and oversight, we cannot know with certainty how many requests for assisted suicide have been made and for what reasons, why some requests were denied while others were fulfilled, and trends that might impact California’s health care and public policies moving forward.
On April 17, 2024, SB 1196 was withdrawn, meaning it won’t be considered this year. However, the threat of similar bills being introduced in the future remains. DREDF will continue to watch for, and oppose, similar legislative proposals.
Disclaimer: This blog published by DREDF is available for informational and educational purposes only. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. It should not be considered legal advice on any subject matter or be used as a substitute for legal advice. You should consult with an attorney before you rely on information in this blog.
The information provided on DREDF’s blog is accurate and true to the best of DREDF’s knowledge as of the time it was written. The information provided may not be up to date, and may include omissions, errors or mistakes.
DREDF’s blog may contain links to external, or third-party websites. These links are provided solely for readers’ convenience. Links taken to other sites are at your own risk and DREDF accepts no liability for any linked sites or their content.
If you are seeking legal assistance from DREDF or would like to consult with DREDF on a legal issue, do not use the comments to this blog. Please contact DREDF by calling (510) 644-2555 or by email at info@dredf.org. Any requests for individual legal services submitted here in this blog will not be fulfilled.
