Sunday, September 9, 2018
i was reading about ECHO MOLST the other day. ECHO MOLST is part of Project ECHO
a lifelong learning and guided practice model that revolutionizes medical education and exponentially increases workforce capacity to provide best-practice specialty care and reduce health disparities. The heart of the ECHO model™ is its hub-and-spoke knowledge-sharing networks, led by expert teams who use multi-point videoconferencing to conduct virtual clinics with community providers. In this way, primary care doctors, nurses, and other clinicians learn to provide excellent specialty care to patients in their own communities using an all-teach all-learn model.
Project ECHO links expert specialist teams at a “hub” with primary care clinicians and other professionals in local communities. Primary care clinicians, the “spokes” in the ECHO model, become part of a learning community, where they receive mentoring and feedback from specialists. Together, they manage patient cases so that patients get the care they need. Although the ECHO model makes use of telecommunications technology, it is different from telemedicine.
What makes this training unique? According to the website, "Project ECHO’s innovative approach will support the current and future needs of our clinicians and system leaders. ECHO MOLST will provide long term, sustainable MOLST education that will improve the competency and capacity of clinicians and improve adherence to patient preferences at end-of-life." The video conference 8 week training is set to start on September 13, 2018 .
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Is suicide by older adults ever a rational choice? It’s a topic many older people discuss among themselves, quietly or loudly — and one that physicians increasingly encounter, too. Yet most have scant training or experience in how to respond, said Dr. Meera Balasubramaniam, a geriatric psychiatrist at the New York University School of Medicine.
She has written on the topic with a colleague, in an attempt "to generate more medical discussion,... in a 2017 anthology, “Rational Suicide in the Elderly,” and she revisited it recently in an article in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society." The Hastings Center has also weighed in on the issue with the current Hastings Center Report with "a debate over “voluntary death” to forestall dementia."
The article acknowledges that suicide is an important public health issue that also includes older adults. The article explains the issues on both sides of this debate. For example,
Failing to take action to prevent suicide, some ethicists and clinicians argue, reflects an ageist assumption — one older people themselves aren’t immune to — that the lives of old or disabled people lack value.
A tolerant approach also overlooks the fact that people often change their minds, declaring certain conditions unendurable in the abstract but choosing to live if when the worst actually happens.
Slippery-slope arguments factor into the debate, too. “We worry that we could shift from a right to die to a duty to die if we make suicide seem desirable or justifiable,” Dr. Balasubramaniam said.
The article explores some of the research regarding suicide and features some quotes from individuals in addition to experts.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
When a resident of a long term care facility dies, should that person's passing be marked in some way? According to a recent article in Kaiser Health News, Creating Rituals To Honor The Dead At Long-Term-Care Facilities one expert says the answer to that question is yes. This expert
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
While courts are most often called upon to appoint guardians or conservators in the absence of an authorized agent, another way in which courts may be required to act is when family members disagree about the course of care under private arrangements. High profile examples of how this can arise often involve celebrities. The latest example seems to involve comedian Tim Conway, where his wife and daughter are reportedly at "odds over his medical treatment." From People magazine's online site comes this sad report:
The 84-year-old Carol Burnett Show star’s daughter Kelly is asking to be appointed conservator of her father and be in charge of his medical treatments, according to court documents obtained by PEOPLE and first reported by The Blast.
Kelly, 56, filed the documents in Los Angeles on Friday, claiming Conway’s wife Charlene is “planning to move him out of the excellent skilled nursing facility he is currently at” and place him in one that won’t give him access to “registered nurses at all times and his 24-hour caregiver and speech therapist (to help with swallowing).”
Charlene is Conway’s second wife. He was previously married to Kelly’s mother Mary Anne Dalton from 1961-78. (In addition to Kelly, they share daughter Jackie and sons Jaime, Tim Jr., Pat, Corey and Shawn.)
Kelly also states that Conway cannot “properly provide for his personal needs for physical health, food, and clothing” and is “almost entirely unresponsive.”
Second marriages, where the families did not blend well, often seem to be a factor, especially if money becomes an issue. My thanks to my Dickinson Law colleague Laurel Terry for sharing this item for our Blog.
August 28, 2018 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, Estates and Trusts, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, State Cases | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, August 10, 2018
Kaiser Health News ran a story How Soon Is Soon Enough To Learn You Have Alzheimer’s? Do you want to know, or instead think just it's age-related memory loss?
The prospect of having Alzheimer’s can be so scary, and the current treatment options so few, that many people dismiss memory problems or other symptoms rather than investigate them, say Alzheimer’s specialists; it’s estimated that as many as half of all cases aren’t diagnosed.
But that may soon change. Researchers are making progress in measuring beta-amyloid and other Alzheimer’s biomarkers in blood that might eventually be able to reliably, inexpensively and non-invasively identify the disease years before cognitive symptoms develop.
Despite the scariness of the diagnosis, the article notes good reasons for early diagnosis, including discovering the underlying cause is a treatable condition, saving money "in terms of health costs and long-term care costs over the course of their lifetime," the time to plan for incapacity and "[r]esearchers hope that by getting more Alzheimer’s patients diagnosed early on, more people with the disease will, like Jose, be able to make the best of the health they have."
Tuesday, August 7, 2018
We have had a number of posts of late regarding medical aid-in-dying, so I was interested in this article in the Washington Post, Assisted suicide is controversial, but palliative sedation is legal and offers peace. The article opens relating one individual's experiences and explains that "[u]nder palliative sedation, a doctor gives a terminally ill patient enough sedatives to induce unconsciousness. The goal is to reduce or eliminate suffering, but in many cases the patient dies without regaining consciousness." The article makes a stark contrast between physician aid-in-dying, which is authorized in a handful of states, compared to "[p]alliative sedation [which] has been administered since the hospice care movement began in the 1960s and is legal everywhere." The article notes that palliative care is not without concerns, mainly moral lconcerns on the part of health care providers, with variations in policies throughout hospitals.
Where is the line between terminal sedation and euthanasia, ponders the article, with positions offered on both sides.
[M]any doctors who use palliative sedation say the bright line that distinguishes palliative sedation from euthanasia is intent. ... "There are people who believe they are the same. I am not one of them,” said Thomas Strouse, a psychiatrist and specialist in palliative-care medicine at the UCLA Medical Center. “The goal of aid-in-dying is to be dead; that is the patient’s goal. The goal in palliative sedation is to manage intractable symptoms, maybe through reduction of consciousness or complete unconsciousness.”
Others, including the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, recommend that providers use as little medication as needed to achieve “the minimum level of consciousness reduction necessary” to make symptoms tolerable.
The question often posed is whether terminal sedation will hasten death, and in some cases, no antibiotics, nutrition or hydration are provided and whether death occurs sooner depends in large part on the person's condition. As one expert noted, "in all cases the goal isn’t death but relief from suffering."
When is the use of terminal sedation appropriate? The article discusses its use to relieve "existential suffering" which is defined by "the hospice and palliative-care group ... as 'suffering that arises from a loss or interruption of meaning, purpose, or hope in life.'" In comparing it to aid-in-dying, it may provide an option for those who are not eligible for aid-in-dying assistance. "Whether palliative sedation truly ends suffering is not knowable, although doctors perceive indications that it does."
Thursday, July 19, 2018
During a session at the first day of the 21st Annual Pennsylvania Elder Law Institute, we had an interesting dialogue about how best to utilize Physician Orders of Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms. One attorney described how clients sometimes arrive at her law firm for advice on various estate planning matters, including a blank POLST form that was given to them in the hospital. The client asks, in essence,"what should I do with this?" One attorney said she walks through the form with clients, but always emphasizes that the most important part of the process is the conversation with the client's physician about her choices that should be happening before completing the document.
Along that line, there is a timely post on the Health Affairs Blog today, with the headline "Counting POLST Form Completion Can Hinder Quality." The authors, two physicians in Oregon, describe an incident in which a patient reported feeling pressured at a hospital to complete a POLST form, and they raise the potential for the pressure being a side effect of that patient's health plan keeping track of frequency of completion of POLSTs or other advance directives for all patients 65 or older, marking a high rate of completion as success. They observe:
Many stakeholders have been concerned about how best to measure the quality of advance care planning and use of the POLST form. Some health plans and payers measure the frequency of POLST form completion without a clearly delineated eligible denominator population. Use of such a metric erodes the quality of the POLST program as the following case illustrates. . . .
When health care professionals encourage patients who are “too healthy” to complete a POLST form (instead of an advance directive), even when orders are for “CPR/Full Treatment,” they may cause harm. If the patient later loses decision-making capacity and clinically deteriorates to a condition in which he or she would have desired a comfort-oriented approach, the presence of the inappropriate POLST may increase the decision-making burden on the family. Another concern is that some healthy patients have been denied life insurance because their medical record inappropriately includes a POLST form; the company incorrectly believing the patient has a limited life expectancy.
The authors argue persuasively that:
Accordingly, we do not believe that POLST forms should be mandated or counted as a quality measure. Instead, POLST quality measures should count conversations about patients’ goals for care as they near the end of their lives.
I recommend the full article, linked above, including review of their "seven imperatives to preserve POLST quality."
July 19, 2018 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Programs/CLEs, State Statutes/Regulations, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0)
Friday, July 13, 2018
We have blogged a couple of times at least about California's Aid-in-Dying law, most recently about the judge declaring the law unconstitutional. While the constitutionality issue makes its way through the court system, California in late June released statistics to show how many folks had previously availed themselves of the law. The New York Times reported that Nearly 400 People Used California Assisted Death Law in 2017.
Here are some statistics from the article:
374 terminally ill people took drugs to end their lives in 2017, the first full year after a law made the option legal....
577 people received aid-in-dying drugs last year, but not everyone used them....
Of the 374 who died, about 90 percent were more than 60 years old, about 95 percent were insured and about 83 percent were receiving hospice or similar care. The median age was 74....
Most of the recipients were college educated and receiving hospice or similar care....
The 374 people who died include 11 people who were prescribed drugs in 2016 but died last year.
Another 86 people were prescribed the lethal drugs but died without taking them, while the fate of the remaining 128 people wasn't reported.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
I've written in the past about the use of "gun trusts" as a legal device to handle passage of guns to others, while avoiding some laws related to registration by gun owners.
There's another way to think about trust documents with guns, to provide a safeguarding process within families. As one article suggests,
Talk to your loved one about how to safely transfer ownership of their guns if they should become incapacitated. Consider writing a “gun trust,” a legal document outlining that process.
For more, read the Kaiser Health News's piece, Worried About Grandpa's Guns? Here's What You Can Do. Thanks, Matt Lawrence, for sharing this story.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Two more items to add to your resources and reading on end of life in the U.S.
First: The New York Times ran an op-ed earlier in the month, Let Dying People End Their Suffering.Written by Diane Rehm, the focus of this piece is on California's aid-in-dying law. She writes about a friend with terminal cancer who expressed relief about the law that allowed her to seek aid-in-dying. As readers of this blog know, the law was overturned, so Ms. Rehm writes about the turmoil the decision has caused for those with terminal illnesses and their families. She writes about her husband, in Maryland, without the option of aid-in-dying, who instead opted for voluntarily refusing food and fluids.
Ms. Rehm makes a heartfelt argument in support of the aid-in-dying law, concluding her article this way
Let me be clear: I understand that many people believe that only God should determine the time of their death, and I support them 100 percent. Others want every additional minute of life that medical science can give them, and I support those people 100 percent. But the end of life is an extremely personal experience. If, when my time comes, I see only unbearable suffering ahead of me, then I want my preference to have access to medical aid in dying to be supported 100 percent, as well.
As Archbishop Desmond Tutu has written, “Regardless of what you might choose for yourself, why should you deny others the right to make this choice?”
Back in May, the president of the Hastings Center wrote a piece, Hastings Center President Calls for “Moral Leadership” to Improve End-of-Life Care.
The president made two lectures, "the 23rd annual Joseph N. Muschel Medical House Staff Award Lecture at Medicine Grand Rounds at Columbia University on May 16 and the Annual Wilhelm S. Albrink Lecture in Bioethics at West Virginia University on May 18... [where she] called on clinicians, hospital leaders, and bioethicists to broaden the usual ethical framework beyond “thin” notions of autonomy to a more robust relational ethics, that would build new systems, better capable of ensuring that frail older Americans and their caregivers get the support they need."
In her talk, when she turned to the topic of end of life "and population aging, she told the audiences: 'Redesigning our systems of health care delivery is one of the most important challenges of our time and will take significant moral leadership. But even that is not enough: beyond changes within care delivery settings, we also need to redesign our communities – so that housing, transportation and social supports are there for the increasing number of Americans living longer with frailty and dementia.'"
I'm sure these two pieces will not be the last on end of life care, so, stay tuned.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Maybe it's just me, but does it seem to you that there are a lot of articles of late about advance directives and end of life issues? Here's a recent one published by Kaiser Health News. That ‘Living Will’ You Signed? At The ER, It Could Be Open To Interpretation.
opens with an ER nurse saying DNR because the patient had a living will, but reading the document showed the language to be just the opposite, "'[d]o everything possible,' it read, with a check approving cardiopulmonary resuscitation." The point is to illustrate the mistake that the existence of a living will automatically means no resuscitation. "Unfortunately, misunderstandings involving documents meant to guide end-of-life decision-making are “surprisingly common,” said [the] medical director of advance-care planning and end-of-life education for Huntsville Hospital Health System in Alabama."
There's a new report from Pennsylvania, Empowering Patients and Agents to Help Prevent Errors with Living Wills, DNRs, and POLSTs
In 2016, acute healthcare facilities in the Commonwealth reported through the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Reporting System (PA-PSRS) nearly 100 events involving the code status or treatment level of patients. Twenty-nine patients were resuscitated against their wishes. Two patients were not treated when their wishes indicated they should have been. The remaining cases represent near misses that could have affected the patient, but were resolved before harm occurred.
The Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority is unable to verify whether the do not resuscitate (DNR) orders or physician orders for life-sustaining treatment (POLST) were appropriate, correctly created, or verified prior to these patient safety events occurring in real time.
The Kaiser Health News article details communication missteps and offers that
The problem, Hoffman explained, is that doctors and nurses receive little, if any, training in understanding and interpreting living wills, DNR orders and Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) forms, either on the job or in medical or nursing school.
Communication breakdowns and a pressure-cooker environment in emergency departments, where life-or-death decisions often have to be made within minutes, also contribute to misunderstandings, other experts said.
One expert interviewed for the article suggests these missteps are more common explaining his use of hypotheticals where "he has asked medical providers how they would respond to hypothetical situations involving patients with critical and terminal illnesses." He goes on to explain
He described a 46-year-old woman brought to the ER with a heart attack and suddenly goes into cardiac arrest. Although she’s otherwise healthy, she has a living will refusing all potentially lifesaving medical interventions. What would you do, he asked more than 700 physicians in an internet survey?
Only 43 percent of those doctors said they would intervene to save her life — a troubling figure...Since this patient didn’t have a terminal condition, her living will didn’t apply to the situation at hand and every physician should have been willing to offer aggressive treatment, he explained.
The article offers some suggestions from one expert to avoid these situations: "[m]ake sure you have ongoing discussions about your end-of-life preferences with your physician, surrogate decision-maker, if you have one, and family, especially when your health status changes... Without these conversations, documents can be difficult to interpret."
Monday, June 18, 2018
The New England Journal of Medicine published recently Substitute Decision Making in End-of-Life Care. The article uses a case study of a hypothetical patient in a very serious condition in ICU who has no advance directive. The case study asks whether to enter a DNR or continue treatment and offers short essays by experts to use as resources in making the decision. The article then gives the reader a chance to answer DNR or continue treatment and the ability to compare the choice to other readers'. This is an interesting way to educate on an issue and could be easily adaptable to our elder law classes.
Friday, June 8, 2018
John Oliver, the star of Last Week Tonight focused on guardianship on the June 3, 2018 show. The segment focused quite a bit on some of the abuses that have been reported recently in the press. But, to Mr. Oliver's credit, he notes that sometimes, despite a person's efforts, a guardianship is needed. He provides suggestions for improving the system and for individuals on planning to minimize the chances of a guardianship going wrong. There is some good info in the segment, and he makes several important points, but in a comedic and satirical format.
The link to the segment is here. Be sure to watch through to the end, to see cameos from several celebrities offering advice on planning for incapacity (although they do get off track quite a bit) including health care powers of attorney and DPOAs. And who wouldn't want Tom Hanks to be their health care agent! (You have to watch the last bit to get that reference). Caveat: there is some "salty" language used throughout the segment.
June 8, 2018 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Crimes, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Elder Abuse/Guardianship/Conservatorship, State Cases, State Statutes/Regulations, Television | Permalink | Comments (1)
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Earlier this week I posted an update on California's aid-in-dying law. I was interested in this article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Beyond Legalization — Dilemmas Physicians Confront Regarding Aid in Dying.
Noting that doctors in jurisdictions where aid-in-dying is lawful are will need to have conversations with patients making the request, the author suggests
Physicians can start by clarifying what patients are asking and why. Some ways in which patients might raise the topic of PAD are listed in the box. Not every question about PAD is a request for assisted suicide. Patients might be seeking information, talking through concerns, expressing distress, or trying to ascertain the physician’s views. To clarify the patient’s motivation, physicians might say, “I’ll be glad to answer that question, but first please tell me what led you to ask.”
The author offers some examples of how patients might raise the issues with their doctors and suggests the next step for doctors is to
explore patients’ concerns and identify and address their palliative care needs, regardless of the physicians’ own views or the legal status of PAD where they practice. Discussions could cover patients’ physical symptoms; psychosocial, existential, and spiritual suffering; hopes and fears; and goals of care. All options for end-of-life care should be discussed, including palliative and hospice care and palliative sedation.
It’s also important for physicians to think through what actions they’re willing to take. Both physicians who support PAD and those who oppose it should try to relieve patients’ multidimensional concerns and distress. After comprehensive palliative care is intensified, 46% of patients who have requested PAD change their minds. (citations omitted).
The author recommends the doctors consider the parameters of when they would participate in medical-aid-in-dying, offering that "perceived loss of autonomy and dignity is now a more common reason for requesting PAD than inadequate pain control." (citation omitted). The author also discusses issues that may occur from a doctor's lack of experience in the area and potential adverse outcomes and counseling families about them. The author also offers some comments for doctors who are opposed to medical aid-in-dying and concludes with this advice: "[r]esponding to inquiries about PAD is new territory for most physicians. To fulfill their obligations to patients and be true to their own values, physicians should think through how they will respond to the challenges raised by these conversations."
Monday, June 4, 2018
As we previously blogged, after a trial court judge struck the law, the California Attorney General filed an appeal. According to a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle, California’s right-to-die law on hold for at least a month.
California’s right-to-die law for terminally ill patients will apparently remain suspended for at least another month after a judge on Wednesday reaffirmed his ruling that the law was illegally considered and passed during a special legislative session on health care.
[The judge] ruled the law invalid May 15 and halted its enforcement last Friday. It had been in effect since June 2016, allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending medication to mentally competent adults who have less than six months to live.
On Wednesday, the nonprofit Compassion & Choices ... asked [the judge] to suspend his ruling and cited its potential impact on two terminally ill patients, one of them an 82-year-old Marin County woman who has already obtained a prescription for life-ending medication. The judge denied the request.
The state attorney general also weighed in, seeking to have the order set asid eon the grounds that "the judge improperly issued a statewide order in a local lawsuit and also should have given his office 10 days, under state law, to file objections to Friday’s order before putting it into effect." The Judge has set a June 29 hearing.
The article offers this to describe the impact of the order. "Because of the ruling, doctors can no longer prescribe life-ending medication to dying patients, and a patient who had already been provided with the medication would be committing suicide by taking it, with implications for insurance coverage."
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
As we reported last week, a trial court judge in California held that the California physician-aid-in-dying law was invalid. The state appealed, according to an article in the LA Times. A subsequent article in the New York Times reports that the appellate court declined a stay of the trial court's ruling pending the appeal, No Stay of Ruling That Tossed California Assisted-Death Law. "California's 4th District Court of Appeal refused to grant an immediate stay requested by state Attorney General Xavier Becerra. However, the court gave Becerra and other parties time to "show cause" — that is, provide more arguments as to why the court should grant the stay and suspend the lower court ruling.” Since no injunction was entered, the law still is in effect, as noted in the article. The California AG " argued that the measure was legitimately passed and asked [the appellate court] for quick action so that terminally ill people seeking options under the law wouldn't die "an excruciating, painful death" before the issue is finally decided."
Monday, May 28, 2018
Here's a challenging but potentially important topic for many families on this holiday weekend.
Becky has a post last week about the importance of doctors asking older patients about guns as a safety risk. I've posted in the past, here and here, about related issues, including laws affecting registration of gun ownership when intervivos or testamentary trusts are used as the legal vehicle to pass down weapons to succeeding generations.
The New York Times continues the conversation with In Elderly Hands, Firearms Can Be Even Deadlier. From Paula Span's article:
While older adults make many fewer suicide attempts than younger cohorts, they die more often, in part because they use such lethal methods. Yet health care providers who ask older patients about driving and wandering may not ask about guns.
“Safety planning for adults with dementia is something every clinician thinks about, but I don’t think firearms are often on the radar,” said Dr. Donovan Maust, a psychiatrist at the University of Michigan Medical School and co-author of a recent article on guns and dementia in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
They should be. At various stages of dementia, people may grow unable to distinguish loved ones from intruders. Their decision-making ability deteriorates. They can become paranoid, depressed, impulsive, agitated or aggressive.
Dr. Maust's co-authored commentary, linked above, is worthy of closer reading. Perhaps in an attempt to allay the fears of gun owners that dementia is not an automatic disqualifier for gun ownership, the piece suggests that doctors consider the stage of any neurocognitive impairment as part of a multi-party discussion about access:
A diagnosis of cognitive impairment or dementia does not in itself mean that a person should not have access to firearms—the level of cognitive impairment is probably most important. In a recent review, Patel and colleagues proposed using the clinical dementia rating scale to estimate the stage of dementia and the person's ability to safely complete complex tasks, including firearm handling.
For patients with minimal cognitive impairment, approaches could be similar to those related to driving, including acknowledging the emotions involved and allowing the PWD [person with dementia] to maintain agency in the decision for as long as it is safe. As with an “advance driving directive”, PWDs, their family members, and their health care providers may proactively discuss firearm access and consider setting a “firearm retirement date”. This patient-centered approach may allow an older adult to maintain decisional control and identify trusted family members or providers as future surrogate decision makers. To our knowledge, no one has tested the acceptability or efficacy of this approach.
May 28, 2018 in Advance Directives/End-of-Life, Cognitive Impairment, Consumer Information, Current Affairs, Dementia/Alzheimer’s, Ethical Issues, Health Care/Long Term Care, Property Management, State Statutes/Regulations, Statistics | Permalink | Comments (0)
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Both Becky and I have written about a California trial court's recent ruling that a California's law permitting physician assistance in death was enacted in an unconstitutional manner. The judge granted a window of five days before the ruling would become effective, to permit any appeal. That appeal has now been filed by the California Attorney General. From the Los Angeles Times:
California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra on Monday filed an appeal against a judge's recent ruling overturning the state's physician-assisted suicide law. . . .
Becerra's action Monday moves the case to an appeals court, which will decide the future of the law. He also asked that the law stay in place while the matter is further litigated, a request that will most likely be granted, said Kathryn Tucker, an attorney who heads the End of Life Liberty Project at UCSF/UC Hastings Consortium on Law, Science & Health Policy.
As Becky says, stay tuned. But probably best not to hold your breath while awaiting the next ruling.
Monday, May 21, 2018
A number of news outlets reported that a trial court judge has overturned California's aid-in-dying law. As an example, the LA Times reported Riverside judge overturns California's doctor-assisted suicide law. The judge ruled "that the California Legislature violated the law by passing the End of Life Option Act during a special session dedicated to healthcare issues, according to the plaintiffs in the case as well as advocates for the law." The law, which has been in effect about 6 months, has already been used, according to sources quoted in the article. "In the first six months California's law was in effect, more than 100 people made use of it to end their lives. Fifty-nine percent of them had cancer, according to state data." Both sides on this issue are quoted in the article. The state attorney general has 5 days from the order's entry to file an appeal.
Thursday, May 17, 2018
On May 15, 2018, a state judge issued a long-awaited ruling, concluding that the California Legislature violated the state constitution by enacting the state's End of Life Option Act that became effective in 2016 during a 2015 special session dedicated to healthcare issues. From the Los Angeles Times:
A Riverside County judge overturned California's physician-assisted suicide law on Tuesday, giving the state attorney general five days to file an appeal to keep the law in place.
California's law, which allows terminally ill patients to request lethal medications from their doctors, has been the subject of a fierce and emotional debate since it was approved in 2015. The state was the fifth in the nation to legalize the practice.
Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Ottolia said Tuesday that the California Legislature violated the law by passing the End of Life Option Act during a special session dedicated to healthcare issues, according to the plaintiffs in the case as well as advocates for the law.
"We're very happy with the decision today," said Alexandra Snyder, head of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit. "We will now wait and see what the attorney general does."
In a statement emailed to The Times, California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said: "We strongly disagree with this ruling and the state is seeking expedited review in the Court of Appeal."