Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
The United Spinal Association, Not Dead Yet, Institute for Patients’ Rights, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free, Lonnie VanHook, and Ingrid Tischer have launched a lawsuit in California to strike down the California assisted suicide law with the goal of the case going to the United States Supreme Court to strike down assisted laws throughout the US. (Link to the complaint).
The Plaintiffs are all organizations with members who have disabilities, individual persons with disabilities, and/or organizations that advocate for persons with disabilities.
The case asserts that the assisted suicide act is a discriminatory scheme, which creates a two-tiered medical system in which people who are suicidal receive radically different treatment responses by their physicians and protections from the State depending on whether the person has what the physician deems to be a “terminal disease”—which, by definition, is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case states that assisted suicide laws are situated within a long history of American state laws and practices directly harming and discriminating against people with disabilities on the grounds that those peoples’ lives are not as worthy of protecting as others. It also states that California’s assisted suicide law steers vulnerable people to their deaths instead of providing care and supportive services.
Plaintiff United Spinal’s members with spinal cord injuries at times experience depression and suicidal thoughts as they must adjust to living with their disability after injury. Most people with life-threatening conditions who say that they want to die are actually asking for assistance in living—that is, for help in dealing with the symptoms and practical necessities common to living with a terminal disability: depression, anxiety about the future, grief, inadequate care options, dependence, lack of control, fear about physical suffering, and spiritual despair.
The case states that laws that discriminate against people with terminal disabilities by depriving them of protections afforded other persons under California law in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”). The State’s suicide prevention programs are designed to ensure that a person’s expression of suicidal ideation is sufficient in itself to trigger mental health care, irrespective of whether they want treatment. Assisted suicide deprives Plaintiffs and their members access to these life-preserving interventions because of their disabilities.
The case states that the assisted suicide law violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to include sufficient safeguards to ensure that a judgment-impaired or unduly influenced person does not receive and/or ingest lethal physician-assisted suicide drugs without adequate due process in waiving their fundamental right to live. The Act’s failure to require an exhaustive or at least evidence of an informed rejection, of less restrictive alternatives to assisted suicide––including suicide prevention services, palliative care, hospice care, and other personal support services currently provided by the State––also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case asserts that the assisted suicide act is a discriminatory scheme, which creates a two-tiered medical system in which people who are suicidal receive radically different treatment responses by their physicians and protections from the State depending on whether the person has what the physician deems to be a “terminal disease”—which, by definition, is a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case states that assisted suicide laws are situated within a long history of American state laws and practices directly harming and discriminating against people with disabilities on the grounds that those peoples’ lives are not as worthy of protecting as others. It also states that California’s assisted suicide law steers vulnerable people to their deaths instead of providing care and supportive services.
Plaintiff United Spinal’s members with spinal cord injuries at times experience depression and suicidal thoughts as they must adjust to living with their disability after injury. Most people with life-threatening conditions who say that they want to die are actually asking for assistance in living—that is, for help in dealing with the symptoms and practical necessities common to living with a terminal disability: depression, anxiety about the future, grief, inadequate care options, dependence, lack of control, fear about physical suffering, and spiritual despair.
The case states that laws that discriminate against people with terminal disabilities by depriving them of protections afforded other persons under California law in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”). The State’s suicide prevention programs are designed to ensure that a person’s expression of suicidal ideation is sufficient in itself to trigger mental health care, irrespective of whether they want treatment. Assisted suicide deprives Plaintiffs and their members access to these life-preserving interventions because of their disabilities.
The case states that the assisted suicide law violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to include sufficient safeguards to ensure that a judgment-impaired or unduly influenced person does not receive and/or ingest lethal physician-assisted suicide drugs without adequate due process in waiving their fundamental right to live. The Act’s failure to require an exhaustive or at least evidence of an informed rejection, of less restrictive alternatives to assisted suicide––including suicide prevention services, palliative care, hospice care, and other personal support services currently provided by the State––also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case is asking the court to declare the California assisted suicide act as unlawful and unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteThis is huge. It is so hard to find arguments that are accepted by all. But discrimination is one that does. Let us see where this leads.
Does our Canadian constitution have a due process provision. The right to life should override any health care decision to end one's life. Maybe such a right would negate what Judge Lynn Smith did to open the door to euthanasia in Canada. With my limited exposure to how justice is done, a judge rules on the evidence presented they do not go further, maybe the lawyers did not present a "due process" argument.
ReplyDeleteThis is, indeed, huge. Full marks to any person or institution that can change the course of these insidious plans, and close the floodgates of Assisted Suicide. One can only hope that they have a resounding win, and that the process is repeated throughout the world. The Little Person may not be able to fight the process, but perhaps an organised and wider-spread legally-supported front will bring results.
ReplyDeleteHow would a decision in this case affect the PAS laws in other states?
ReplyDeleteThe goal of the case is for it to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteBrittany Maynard has been used as the poster child for assisted suicide, with both her mother and "husband" stumping nonstop, along with Compassion & Choices, to expand it state by state in the U.S. I happen to be Brittany's aunt. I have investigated her "suicide" and uncovered compelling evidence that it was a hoax: Brittany is not dead (and is probably now working for the CIA). Physician-assisted suicide is not euthanasia, but eugenics. Please see my blog post at https://therealcolorado.org/index.php/2022/02/21/brittany-maynard-my-undead-niece/ for my evidence. Compassion & Choices has been linked to George Soros. --Alison Maynard
ReplyDeleteDear Alison.
ReplyDeleteI personally have no idea about Brittany Maynard's death, other than the media reports, but it unlikely that she is still alive considering the time that has passed, etc.
She never had cancer, Alex--so we are talking about someone who is now 38 and runs half-marathons.
ReplyDeleteThe media reports are fake--please see my blog post. Brittany's uncle David Ziegler is in military intelligence. The whole push to expand assisted suicide is an "op" consistent with the deathly COVID "vaccination" campaign.
Thanks for all the excellent work you are doing--I am in wholehearted agreement with the EPC's mission.
Allison: I found your niece’s campaign deeply obnoxious, but I think it’s clear that she is dead and that the premise that she’s alive somewhere working for the CIA is absurd.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, this lawsuit is exactly what should be happening. Assisted suicide laws are very clearly in violation of the ADA and are intertwined with the practice of eugenics.