“On Monday, Oct. 5, Governor Jerry Brown enacted SB 128 into law, legalizing physician-assisted suicide in California. The California State Legislature had previously approved this bill on Sept. 11 with a vote of 23 to 14. Beginning in January of 2016, California will become the fifth state in the nation to implement Death with Dignity laws.
Brown released a statement when he signed the bill that further explains the reasoning behind his final decision. He says, “I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill.”
Over the past years, physician-assisted suicide has been a divisive issue.
English teacher Jennifer Wei says, “A major part of the issue is the [struggle] between what we want [assisted suicide] to be in a theoretical world versus what it is in reality.”
She adds, “There are two main arguments that I have heard students [debate] over the years. One perspective is that a lived life is sacred, and the [other] is that life in and of itself is sacred regardless of whether or not you’re in pain.”
Senior Kate Holland, who interned for California State Senator Jerry Hill, a contributing sponsor of the bill, says, “A lot of people called in with mostly negative complaints about the bill. Some people had experiences where [a family member] was predicted to die at a certain point and didn’t die at that point. They argued that doctors weren’t always right.”
However, she says, “On the other hand, most of those people were not in great pain, so they would not have used assisted suicide anyway. The bill is very limited in its scope in that for physician-assisted suicide to be allowed, there needs to be physical pain present that will prevent [a person] from living later on.”
Major proponents of the bill are the parents of Brittany Maynard, a woman who chose to end her life at age 29 after battling terminal brain cancer. Maynard, a Bay Area resident, had to travel to Oregon in order to legally access life-ending medications and die on her own terms. Maynard’s parents have been determined to preserve their daughter’s legacy by advocating for the legalization of assisted-suicide in California.
English teacher Sandra Skale recognizes the great impact of Brittany Maynard in spreading support for physician assisted suicide in California, saying, “that [case] was a huge emotional draw on people because she was not that old and so many people could relate to her and position themselves in her situation. [People then saw how] a law does not require terminally ill patients to choose assisted suicide, but it gives [patients] the opportunity [and] that is what is important.”
Senior Scott Chow agrees that this bill causes an emotional attraction, saying, “I think that a lot of the supporters of the bill [were] appealing to people’s emotions to get the bill to pass. Their main argument is that it’s sad for people to not have personal autonomy over their own bodies, and while this is true, [proponents of the bill] are using emotions to hide the statistics behind [the issue]. The fact is that a lot of people who support assisted suicide have a choice in ending their lives, but a lot of low-income families don’t have much of a choice.”
Chow adds, “A lot of the time, people who have to pay for expensive medical treatment feel like they’re a burden to their families. Assisted-suicide is usually so much less expensive, and if people can’t afford treatment, they think they have no choice but to end their lives.”
English teacher Robynne Francis also noticed in her experience managing junior speech debates that concerns over choice have shaped her student’s beliefs on physician assisted suicide, saying, “The people that are against it would normally say that it is a very slippery slope [because it] gives doctors and family members far too much power. If someone can’t speak up for themselves, the consequences are serious. It is someone deciding to take a life without permission of person or the person may not be in the right state of mind. The negative group usually [argues that] if [patients] had a sort of cancer that affected their brain. They [may not] want to die, they [may] just want the pain to stop.”
In response to Chow, Skale adds, “I think in a perfect world, most people are thinking that people should have the choice. [But] this legalization may put the poor in danger while benefiting the wealthy because they can afford to choose.”
On the other hand, Holland believes there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent such an issue. She says, “A family cannot impose physician-assisted suicide on the patient. [The patient] needs to give consent.”
While the topic of physician assisted suicide is often associated with religion, opposition to the bill does not directly stem from religion in most cases.
Skale tells, “Using religion as a main reason to oppose this is not the way most people go. When [you use religion as your argument], you alienate some of your audience and further support the stereotypes that people already associate with religion for other controversial bills. It is important not to associate choice against religion.”
Francis agrees, believing that this bill brings up moral and emotional, rather than religious, concerns in students, adding, “People naturally have the emotional need to help people, they want to help relieve sufferings, that this is their way how. From watching debates, the religion argument has not been there. I have never had anybody directly bring up religion in their debates. If you had the right to choose to die, and it was against your religion, you wouldn’t choose it. You can still follow your religion while having that right to chose.”
Another point of conflict is the idea that legalizing physician-assisted suicide in California will lead to the normalization of suicide. Many fear that the reach of the law will expand to become more controversial like it has in places like Belgium, where physician-assisted suicide is used in cases of mental illness and has been expanded to allow children to consent to it.
In response to such claims, Holland says, “I don’t see the logic in opposing the bill with the sole reasoning of it leading to worse bills. If that happens, and I don’t think it ever will, you can oppose the worse bills later.”
Chow also disagrees, stating, “The ‘slippery slope’ argument about this issue isn’t really valid. America is less likely to gradually expand [physician-assisted suicide] like Belgium has done. The difference is in American culture and morals, and I feel like the American people will never let something that extreme happen here because there are limits to how far we feel comfortable pushing the definition of consent.”
Skale adds, “This [legalization of physician assisted suicide]] has been brought up for the past 20 years in legislature and in ballots in California, and people have not agreed with it. Maybe in theory they thought it was a good idea, but in practice, they were worried on how it will pan out. A controversial bill has to slowly attract more and more support.”
But opinions physician assisted suicide has evolved throughout the past years, and the right to die is gaining more acceptance in California. Wei says, “California is swinging toward that idea of personal autonomy and control over our own bodies. A lot of people are asking, ‘Should the government have the right to mandate what we do with our bodies?’ This has been really popular with the recent debate over vaccination.”
She adds, “In the [Junior English] class debates for the past 8 years, I have seen most of the juries rule for legalizing physician-assisted suicide, and my classes have been choosing bodily autonomy, agency, and control more and more over the years. The [California] bill shows that morally, we are putting bodily autonomy above the idea that all life is sacred.”
