State’s right-to-die law ought to be recognized by court

Since California’s rightto-die law took effect June 9, 2016, none of opponents’ fears have been realized. The law has given terminal patients of sound mind the humane option of dying with dignity — on their own terms, rather than in excruciating pain.

Arguing, as opponents do, that this harms these Californians rather than helps them ignores this reality: In about 5 percent of cases for terminally ill patients, it’s impossible to manage a dying patient’s pain with medication.

Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Ottolia nevertheless struck down the law May 15, agreeing with the argument that the law didn’t fall under the guise of the special session to improve California’s health.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra should appeal the ruling and push the court to see the state law for what it is: a legitimate health care option. In the meantime, the Legislature can pass it again during a regular session, avoiding a long, drawnout court process. Six other states have passed right-todie legislation, but right now Californians who are terminally ill don’t have the option.

The judge’s ruling is the direct result of the unusual manner in which the law was passed.

California’s End of Life Option Act failed during the regular session. Sens. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, and Lois Wolk, D-Davis, revived it in a special legislative session whose main topic was addressing a lack of health care funding for the poor. Gov. Jerry Brown’s proclamation calling for the special session authorized a vote on legislation “necessary … to improve the health of Californians.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue the right-to-die law did not meet that standard. Those who offer care to terminally ill patients would disagree.

Most of the terminal patients seeking the prescription do so in case they learn that medication to ease their pain does not work.

In order to obtain a prescription, two doctors must confirm a diagnosis of six months or less to live. Doctors are required to discuss alternatives, including pain management and hospice care, with patients. Two witnesses must attest to each request. In the first seven months after California’s law took effect, 191 aid-in-dying prescriptions were written and 111 patients died — far below the prediction of 1,000 made by the Death with Dignity National Center. (Numbers for 2017 and 2018 are not yet available.)

The Bay Area News Group’s Lisa Krieger reported last week on the case of Burbank’s Matt Fairchild, a 48-year-old retired Army staff sergeant with metastatic melanoma. “I pray the attorney general successfully appeals this decision, so hundreds of terminally ill Californians like me don’t have to suffer needlessly at life’s end,” he said.

Giving terminal patients the option to choose to end life on their own terms is not harmful. Anyone who has watched a loved one waste away after enduring months of wrenching pain knows this. It’s an act of compassion that the court should recognize as the final, healthy act of those of sound mind seeking to end their lives free of pain.