The Coalition for Compassionate Care of California does not take a position on the California End of Life Option Act. We are a source of factual information on the provisions of the law, some “best practice” recommendations, and links to other helpful resources.
May 2023
A lawsuit brought by the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and others against the state of California arguing that the End of Life Option Act (EOLOA) violated physicians’ First Amendment rights was settled. Christian Medical & Dental Associations, et al. v. Bonta, et al. was filed in the wake of changes to the EOLOA that required physicians to document a patient’s request for medical aid-in-dying even if that physician declined to participate in the act and prescribe the lethal medications. This documentation, according to amendments to the EOLOA passed in 2022, would constitute the patient’s first of two requests required by the law and “start the clock” on the 48-hour waiting period required before a second request could be made. A preliminary injunction suspending this documentation requirement was granted in September 2022. The settlement allowed the amendments to the law to remain in place, but the state agreed not to enforce the documentation requirement.
April 2023
A lawsuit was filed in federal court by disability rights advocates against a number of state of California departments and agencies to stop the state from “running a deadly system that steers people with terminal disabilities away from necessary mental health care, medical care, and disability supports, and towards death by suicide under the guise of ‘mercy’ and ‘dignity’ in dying.” The suit, United Spinal, et al. v. State of California, et al., contended that the law contributes to a system that too quickly discriminates against those with disabilities, stints on supports that could improve their quality of life, perpetuates barriers to access to aggressive medical care, and deprives them of protections intended to prevent suicide afforded other Californians. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This suit has not yet been heard.
September 2021
A lawsuit, Shavelson v. CA Department of Health Care Services, was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern California district. The suit argued that the End of Life Option Act (EOLOA) violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by requiring patients to be physically capable of ingesting the medical aid in dying drugs without assistance. The suit sought a carve out that would allow physicians to administer the drugs to a patient who otherwise qualified for medical aid-in-dying but due to disability was not able to swallow or get the medication into their mouths, feeding tube, or rectal tube. In dismissing the case, the judge noted that the construction of the EOLOA drew a clear line between assisted suicide, in which the patient administers the lethal medications to themselves, and euthanasia, in which the physician or another third party administers the drug. Allowing an exception to the requirement for self-administration would not be a “reasonable accommodation” to disability but would “fundamentally alter” the nature of the program. A motion to appeal was also dismissed.
January 2020
A ruling by the Riverside County Superior Court confirmed that plaintiffs in the 2016 lawsuit, Ahn v. Hestrin, challenging the End of Life Option Act lacked standing and that the law was passed in the state Legislature appropriately. 2021 Update: The lawsuit, was dropped with the passing of SB 380 (D-Eggman).
June 15, 2018
A California appeals court reinstated the End of Life Option Act law, ruling that it could remain in effect, at least temporarily, while opponents’ legal challenges were considered.
2016
- On May 15, Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Ottolia issued a temporary ruling that the End of Life Option Act (EOLOA) was invalid because of how it was passed. The law was passed in October 2015 during a special legislative session that had been called by Governor Jerry Brown to address healthcare funding issues. According to the trial court, the EOLOA was not reasonably related to the healthcare issues that were the subject of the special session.
- On May 21, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed an emergency appeal of the ruling and also asked that the EOLOA law remain in effect while the matter moves through the courts.
- On May 23, Becerra’s request for an emergency stay to allow the law to remain in effect was denied by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs were notified that they had 25 days to show why the appellate court should not overturn the ruling.
- On May 25, Judge Ottolia finalized his ruling that the EOLOA law was invalid because the way it was passed was unconstitutional.
- On May 30, Judge Ottolia rejected a motion filed by two people with terminal cancer and a physician to reverse his ruling, and he set a June 29 hearing to consider the motion to vacate his earlier ruling. Judge Ottolia’s rulings, coupled with the Appeal court’s refusal to grant an emergency stay, meant that the EoLOA law was suspended and could not be enforced.
- On June 15, California’s 4th District Court of Appeals granted the state’s request to reinstate the EOLOA law while it considered the case.