Friday, April 15, 2005 - The Times-Standard
This week, the California Compassionate Choices Act cleared its first hurdle, gaining approval from the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Assembly Bill 654, authored by North Coast Assemblywoman Patty Berg and Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Sherman Oaks, would allow terminally ill patients to request prescriptions of lethal drugs to hasten their death.
Already, early in the legislative process, AB 654 has brought up issues of ethics, medicine, law, religion and disability, to name just a few. We've run several stories looking at the issue through a variety of these lenses, and will be publishing more in the near future. Check out our stories so far under "Special Sections" on our website, www.times-standard.com
Berg and Levine first proposed the bill last fall, but this spring's debate over Terri Schiavo's last days made death and dying a bigger topic of conversation; however, it's important to note that a Schiavo-type case would not be covered under the bill being considered.
The concept of assisted suicide presents a paradox of sorts: In today's technologically advanced, spiritually diverse world, death is increasingly complicated. It's also deeply personal.
AB 654, while developing dramatically in the most public of places, seems to acknowledge that intimate nature of death. For all the political lobbying on both sides, what this comes down to is the decisions of individual Californians, one at a time. It's about dignity at the end of life, and the freedom to make one's own choices.
When you know that the end of your life is near and there's nothing you can do about it, you should be able to control your own destiny, within proper safeguards. Allowing someone who is already dying to die a little quicker in order to avoid discomfort and increasing indignities seems like the right thing to do, with assurances that the law wouldn't be misused or abused.
For those reasons, we support AB 654.
But a law of this sort shouldn't be created in haste. It's clear that Berg and Levine have put some thought into this, creating strict requirements, and the law is patterned after one that's existed in Oregon for seven years. We urge the Legislature to look closely at the details -- in particular, the segment ensuring that patients are carefully screened for depression and the language making sure that they're counseled on other alternatives such as hospice care. Both these items must be strongly worded to ensure that patients make the decision with a clear head and full information.
Opponents argue that AB 654 will create a slippery slope -- that once we as a society allow terminally ill people to kill themselves we will soon actively encourage it, that people with chronic illnesses and disabilities will soon be included too, that we will move from suicide to active euthanasia. It's a complicated, important discussion to have, and we need to be clear where we will draw the line.
But ultimately, the Legislature needs to consider this particular bill, not other scenarios illegal under AB 654 which might take place in some hypothetical future.
We support this bill because it seems based on individual freedom and autonomy, hallmarks of American life, and perhaps death. We are pleased to see requirements that the patient make multiple requests, wait for 15 days before receiving the medication, and take the medication himself rather than having someone else administer it. Stronger language on depression and palliative care may be warranted, but at its heart, the bill seems designed to allow individuals choices, and dignity, at the end of life.
Such choices and dignity are too often lacking in the process of dying. It's time to look at addressing those needs, so the terminally ill can have a full range of choices in their final days.
# # #