California's Prohibition Against Assisted Suicide Is Constitutional

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

A California trial court has upheld the constitutionality of that state's criminal statute prohibiting assisted suicide, which states:

Every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony.

Penal Code § 401

The court's reasoning is contained in a 19 page "Ruling on Demurrer," filed on July 24, 2015. The ruling uses the term, "Aid in Dying" to mean physician-assisted suicide.  The term also means euthanasia. The court states in part:

Since "Aid in Dying" is quicker and less expensive, there is a much greater potential for its abuse, e.g,, greedy heirs-in-waiting, cost containment strategies, ímpulse decision-making, etc. Moreover, since it can be employed earlier in the dying process, there is a substantial risk that in many cases, it may bring about a patently premature death. For example, consider that a terminally ill patient, not in pain but facing death within the next six months, may opt for “Aid in Dying”' instead of working through what might have been just a transitory period of depression. Further, "Aid in Dying" creates the possible scenario of someone taking his life based upon an erroneous diagnosis of a terminal illness illness, which was, in fact, a mis-diagnosis that could have been brought to light by the passage of time. After all, doctors are not infallible.

"Big Business" and Assisted Suicide

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA*

Assemblyman Roger Hernandez was recently quoted as concerned that big business would use California's assisted suicide proposal, SB 128, to "guide people in that direction," meaning early death via a lethal overdose.

This is a valid concern.

I am an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. Our law is based on a similar law in Oregon. Both laws are similar to SB 128, which seeks to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in California.

In Oregon, it is well documented that Oregon's Medicaid program uses coverage incentives to steer people to suicide.  See Affidavit of Oregon doctor, Ken Stevens, pp 3-4 at https://maasdocuments.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/dr-stevens-affidavit_001.pdf  With legal assisted suicide, private health plans have this same ability.  Dr. Stevens states:

If assisted suicide is legalized in [your state], your government health plan could follow a similar pattern.  Private health plans could also follow this pattern.  If so, these plans would pay for you and/or your family to die, but not to live.  (Emphasis added).

Id, ¶16.

Dr. Stevens also notes that the mere presence of legal assisted suicide steers people to suicide, which was the case with his patient Jeanette Hall.  Her cancer treatment was fully covered, but with the existence of Oregon's law, she nonetheless became adamant that she would kill herself.  Dr. Stevens convinced her to be treated instead.  (Affidavit, ¶¶ 5-9).  She is alive today, fifteen years later.

As for Assemblyman Hernandez's specific "big business concern," in 2013, a Montana State Senator made a similar observation:

I found myself wondering, Where does all the lobby money come from?  If it really is about a few terminally ill people who might seek help ending their suffering, why was more money spent on promoting assisted suicide than any other issue in Montana?

Could it be that convincing an ill person to end their life early will help health insurance companies save a bundle on what would have been ongoing medical treatment?  How much would the government gain if it stopped paying social security, Medicare, or Medicaid a few months early? [it could actually be years earlier].  How much financial relief would pension systems see?  Why was the proposed law to legalize assisted suicide [SB 220] written so loosely?  Would vulnerable old people be encouraged to end their life unnecessarily early by those seeking financial gain? 

http://www.montanansagainstassistedsuicide.org/2013/06/beware-of-vultures-senator-jennifer.html

Finally, there is the expansion issue. In Washington State, we have had informal "trial balloon" proposals to expand our law to non-terminal people. For me, the most disturbing one was in the Seattle Times, which is our largest paper. A column suggested euthanasia as a solution for people without funds in their old age, which could be any of us, say if the company pension plan went broke.**

Assemblyman Hernandez is right to be concerned about what could happen to his constituents if SB 128 is passed.

Don't let California make Washington and Oregon's mistake.  Urge your legislators to vote "NO" on SB 128.

///
               
* Margaret Dore is a former Law Clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court and the Washington State Court of Appeals.  She is a former Chair of the Elder Law Section of the ABA Family Law Committee.  She also worked for a year with the United States Department of Justice.  She is president of Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia.  To learn more, see www.margaretdore.com and www.choiceillusion.org

**  Jerry Large, "Planning for old age at a premium," The Seattle Times, March 8, 2012 ("After Monday's column, . . . a few [readers] suggested that if you couldn't save enough money to see you through your old age, you shouldn't expect society to bail you out. At least a couple mentioned euthanasia as a solution.") (Emphasis added). https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/jerry-large_001.pdf

SB 128 Defeated!

SB 128 Defeated!

The bill did not have the votes to go forward in Committee, and is reportedly dead for the year.

Special thanks to Nina Rhea, Mike Hodas and everyone else who went the extra mile to defeat the bill.

THANK YOU!

Margaret Dore

SB 128 Questions & Answers

For more detailed information

click on these links to see a

 memo and attachments by

attorney Margaret Dore.
See also this press release.

1.  What does SB 128 do?

SB 128 seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

2.  What is physician-assisted suicide?

In the context of SB 128, a doctor writes a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of a patient's suicide. Other people, such as family members, are allowed to assist the suicide, for example, by: suggesting suicide to dad; picking up the lethal dose at the pharmacy; and handing the lethal dose to dad for the purpose of his committing suicide.  

3.  What is euthanasia?

Euthanasia is the direct administration of a lethal dose by someone else to cause another person's death.

4.  How does SB 128 create the perfect crime?

Older people with money are already at risk of abuse and even death at the hands of their family members and other predators wanting an inheritance, life insurance, etc.  With SB 128, there is the creation of the perfect crime:

• The death is allowed to occur in private, without witnesses.  Even if the person struggled, who would know?
• After the person dies, the death certificate is REQUIRED to reflect a natural death.*
• Death benefits under a will or due to life insurance are required to be paid out as if the person had died of a terminal disease.*

5.  Why is it true that people eligible for assisted suicide/euthanasia may have years, even decades, to live? 

SB 128 applies to people with a “terminal disease,” which is defined in terms of a doctor’s determination of less than six months to live. In real life, such persons can have years, even decades to live.  This true for many reasons, including:

• The six months to live determination is made without treatment.  People with chronic conditions, such as insulin dependent diabetes, are “terminal” for the purpose of assisted suicide because they are dependent on insulin to live:  Without insulin, they will with reasonable medical certainty die in less that six months.
• Predicting life expectancy is not an exact science so that doctors are sometimes wrong, and sometimes way wrong.
• Treatment can lead to recovery.

*  Recent amendments to SB 128 did not eliminate the requirement that the death certificate be falsified to reflect a terminal disease.  Rather they moved the requirement to the fine print.  See memo, pp 6-8.