LOS ANGELES – California's landmark aid-in-dying law took effect a year ago Thursday – and advocates say it is working as intended, giving mentally competent, terminally ill people the option to get a prescription for drugs that can end their lives peacefully.

There are no statistics on how many people have chosen this option, but more than 500 people have obtained the prescription.

Kat West, national director of policy and programs for Compassion and Choices, a pro-medical, aid-in-dying group, says many people get the medication but may not use it right away, or at all.

"Terminally ill people want to have the medication primarily for the sense of peace and the comfort that it brings and that they can choose to take if their suffering becomes unbearable," she states.

About 500 hospitals and more than 100 hospice organizations have adopted policies to support patients who choose this option.

About 80 percent of insurance plans cover the medication, including Medi-Cal, Kaiser Permanente, Sutter, Blue Cross Blue Shield and many local health plans.

Before its passage, the Roman Catholic Church and other groups opposed the California End-Of-Life Option Act, citing religious and moral concerns.

West says her group is launching a major public awareness campaign to clear up misconceptions, so people can feel more comfortable considering the option should the need arise.

"Medical aid in dying should become normalized and integrated into the standard of care in California so that everyone has meaningful access to this compassionate end-of-life care option," she stresses.

The bill was inspired by the story of Brittany Maynard, a California newlywed with a terminal brain tumor who had to travel to Oregon in 2014 in order to receive the medication and end her life peacefully.

California is one of six states, plus Washington, D.C., that permits the practice.





get more stories like this via email

California is poised to become the first state in the nation to give health care to all income-eligible residents, regardless of their immigration status.

The Legislature is set to pass the final budget bills this week, which will be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom shortly thereafter.

Cynthia Buiza, executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center, said it is the fulfillment of an almost decadelong push by the Health4All campaign.

"This is very timely, but also long overdue," Buiza asserted. "Because for many, many years, many of our immigrant workers who have contributed tremendously to what makes California, California, have gone on without this very important safety net."

The budget deal represents a huge step toward universal health coverage and is expected to benefit about 700,000 people, starting in 2024. Opponents cite the cost: The budget includes $625 million to cover the first six months of 2024, and then allocates $2.1 billion per year.

Beatriz Hernandez, Central Valley organizer for the California Immigrant Policy Center, said it will make a huge difference in people's quality of life.

"This means that they will finally be able to get the health care that they need to care for the chronic illnesses that they've been suffering for many years," Hernandez pointed out. "And also be able to get the checkups that they need."

The deal marks the final push to expand Medi-Cal to all low-income Californians. In 2015, the state expanded Medi-Cal to include undocumented children. In 2020 the program grew to include young adults, up to 26 years old. And this year the program began to accept undocumented adults, age 50 and older.

The ruling on abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court has returned the issue to the states, fulfilling long-held goals of Republican lawmakers in Texas to ban and criminalize abortion.

With the 49-year-old Row v. Wade case overturned, a trigger law takes effect next month, banning abortions from the moment of fertilization - there is no exception for rape or incest.

Texas lawmakers were ahead of the high court, passing legislation last fall to prohibit abortions after six weeks. Aimee Arrambide, executive director of the Texas chapter of the abortion rights group Avow, said she expects half the states to follow Texas' lead.

"We've been ringing the alarm that what is happening in Texas, doesn't stay in Texas," said Arrambide. "And that the public health crisis Texans have been facing for nearly 10 months will be the reality in half the country. Our opponents are not going to stop until abortion is completely inaccessible in the country."

In his concurring opinion with the 6-3 vote, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said high court rulings that established a right to contraception, as well as gay rights should also be reconsidered.

Following the ruling, Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott said abolishing Roe v. Wade, "reinstated the right of states to protect innocent, unborn children."

New Mexico is now the closest state for many Texans seeking an abortion, but getting there may not be possible for low-income people who don't have the time, money or child care to travel out of state. Progress Texas Advocacy Director Diana Gomez said education is the next step.

"There are a lot of folks who don't know about the existence of abortion funds," said Gomez, "of infrastructures that are already in place to help people get abortions, and so we want to let people know about clinics in surrounding states."

In addition to Texas, 25 other states are expected to make abortion illegal, affecting the lives of 36 million people. University of Texas at Austin Associate Professor Kari White said entire regions of the country may soon be in the business of extreme criminalization.

"In a state like Texas," said White, "it's also going to criminalize a whole range of behaviors and practices for people who are trying to help someone get an abortion."

Prior to the court's ruling, a poll by Reuters showed about 71% of Americans - including majorities of Democrats and Republicans - believed pregnancy termination should be a patient-doctor decision.

Medical negligence cases in Washington and elsewhere have taken on a new shape during the pandemic, as hospital resources have been strained and the potential usefulness of certain treatments has ebbed and flowed.

Drugs like ivermectin, for instance, were touted online as a potential COVID-19 treatment but ultimately lacked scientific evidence to back up those claims.

Elizabeth Calora is a Tacoma lawyer who specializes in medical negligence cases. She said there are some legal requirements for determining if a health professional acted carelessly which have been affected by COVID.

"We need to figure out what a reasonably prudent provider should have been doing in that context," said Calora, "and it usually means talking to experts in the field and then determining if what the provider did in the moment or over the course of several visits violated that standard of care."

Calora said after that, the person has to prove that the breach is what caused the damages.

The Washington state Legislature modified evaluations of negligence cases in 2021 so that resources and staffing must be taken into account. For instance, hospitals have often lacked beds at the height of different COVID waves, a factor outside of doctors' or facilities' control.

Calora said the standard of care evolves over time. What was once an acceptable medical practice in the 1970s, for example, might not be anymore.

"But usually it happens in a much slower timeframe than what we experienced at the start of the pandemic," said Calora. "With COVID, you had physicians all over the world basically - it makes me think of throwing spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks. Everyone was trying everything they could."

Calora said the unforeseen nature of the pandemic has made it hard to bring medical negligence cases forward. However, she added that shouldn't discourage people from speaking with an attorney if they feel they or a loved one has been wronged.

"Even though things were bad," said Calora, "it doesn't give people license to practice beneath the standard of care."