FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Disability Organizations and Individuals Partner to Appeal the Deadly and Discriminatory Public Policy of Physician-Assisted Suicide California Law Unlawful and Unconstitutional
LOS ANGELES, CA — [7/17/24] — The United Spinal Association (“United Spinal”), Not Dead Yet (“NDY”), Institute for Patients’ Rights (“IPR”), Communities Actively Living Independent & Free (“CALIF”), and individual plaintiffs, Lonnie VanHook and Ingrid Tischer, filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit following the recent dismissal of their lawsuit challenging California’s End of Life Option Act (EOLOA). The current state law permits physicians to prescribe lethal drugs to suicidal patients and has weakened many of the safeguards in the original law, fast-tracking death by suicide within 48 hours. The EOLOA, by design, remains unregulated by any California public entity, leaving patients and their loved ones at grave risk of harm and without recourse.
Diane Coleman, President and CEO of NDY commented, “A doctor told my parents I would die by age 12. Many of us with life threatening disabilities like the individual plaintiffs, Lonnie and Ingrid, would be able to qualify for lethal drugs under these laws. The doctor decides who fits the vague definition of “terminal” and studies – including a recent Harvard study – confirm what we already know about the dim view that the majority of doctors take toward people with disabilities. We deserve the same suicide prevention as anybody else – otherwise, it’s unlawful discrimination.”
The appeal contends that the District Court erred in dismissing the Complaint by reasoning that physician assisted suicide is a supposedly voluntary choice and therefore, cannot violate federal disability laws. The ADA does not allow government discrimination even in ”voluntary” programs. And there is no true choice when patients are steered to inexpensive and available physician assisted suicide and face barriers, delays and high costs when trying to live with difficult to access and expensive home health care, palliative care and other necessary supportive services. The terms “terminal” and “6-month prognosis” in the California statute are ambiguous, leading to a broad application that includes individuals with various serious conditions. “We’ve seen cases where people with conditions like diabetes, HIV, anorexia, and others who manipulated their circumstances qualify for life-ending drugs,” observed Matt Vallière, Executive Director of IPR. “This complex reality highlights significant issues that extend far beyond a simple legal analysis.
The recent ruling by the lower court seems to suggest that the law is functioning as intended and will remain unchanged but that is just what plaintiffs are contending. The original safeguards have already been weakened, such as reducing the mandatory waiting period from 15 days to just 48 hours. Recent legislative efforts aimed to further dismantle these protections, potentially enabling even those without life-threatening disabilities to seek assisted suicide, pushing California towards full out euthanasia.