In Shavelson, a terminally ill plaintiff with ALS contends that the ELOA’s self-administration requirement violates anti-discrimination laws on the basis of disability. While the plaintiff is eligible for physician assisted suicide and has the ability to self-administer lethal medication at present, they’d prefer to utilize the option later in the dying process, when self-administration is no longer possible.Accordingly, the plaintiff, joined by her doctor and three other physicians, seeks to eliminate the requirement entirely, and has framed her request as a “reasonable accommodation” under disability law.
On June 22, 2022, Judge Chhabria granted the State’s motion that the plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed, finding thatthe plaintiffs had failed to state a viable claim of discrimination. Judge Chhabria held that elimination of the self-administration requirement would “fundamentally alter” the nature of the ELOA in two distinct ways. First, by traversing the “sharp boundary” between allowing an individual to end their own life and euthanasia. This, Judge Chhabria opined, would transform the benefit available under the Act and compromise its “essential nature.” Second, by opening a window during which there would be no way of knowing whether the patient had changed their mind about ending their life, significantly undermining the protections purposefully included in the ELOA to prevent abuse and coercion.
DREDF previously voiced its opposition to the Shavelson plaintiffs’ efforts to eliminate the ELOA’s self-administration requirement, and agrees with Judge Chhabria’s dismissal of their complaint. It is DREDF’s longstanding position that assisted suicide statutes are part of the United States’ tragic history of state-sanctioned discrimination and bias against people with disabilities and chronic illnesses in health care settings, violate anti-discrimination laws by treating disabled people differently, and convey the message that disabled lives are less worthy.Under assisted suicide laws, the presence or absence of disability alone determines whether an individual is carved out from the protections of state laws prohibiting abuse and neglect, and whether expressions of suicidal intent are responded to with intervention and preventative measures or aid in implementing lethal measures.Where states have nonetheless authorized this practice, it is critical that existing statutory safeguards be preserved. This is particularly true in California, where key protections in the ELOA have already been significantly rolled back. In October 2021, California enacted Senate Bill 380, eliminating key protections the Legislature championed only a few years before, including (1) reducing mandatory 15-day waiting periods between requests for assisted suicide drugs to 48 hours; and (2) eliminating the requirement that an individual affirm their decision before lethal drugs are administered.
Although the immediate threat posed to disabled people by the Shavelson case has been avoided,the fight against the expansion of assisted suicide and euthanasia continues. Judge Chhabria has provided the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint to argue a more narrowed and “unusual” theory of discrimination first raised in response to the State’s motion to dismiss; namely, whether a physician should be allowed to intervene and assist if a patient begins the process of administering lethal medication on their own but cannot complete the act. Judge Chhabria noted that he was skeptical such an amendment would be worthwhile, as “the assumptions required to support standing to pursue such a claim seem fanciful”, nonetheless, the plaintiffs may choose to refile. Alternatively, the plaintiffs may appeal the dismissal of their complaint directly to the Ninth Circuit.
DREDF continues to monitor the Shavelson case and will seek participation as amici in future proceedings as appropriate.
