- California’s End of Life Option Act does not require a psychological evaluation prior to receiving a prescription for aid-in-dying drugs. This lack of basic psychological evaluation and treatment constitutes medical negligence.
- The Act puts vulnerable individuals at risk. We can’t ignore the economic factors at work in medicine. For example, patients in Oregon have been refused life-extending chemotherapy by their insurance companies, who instead opt to pay for aid-in-dying drugs. There are forces at work that will pressure individuals and narrow their options, rather than expand their range of options.
- The Act communicates the message that under especially difficult circumstances, some lives are not worth living. This message will be heard by not only those with a terminal illness but also any person struggling with the temptation to end his or her life.
- The Act abandons vulnerable patients to lethal drugs. To abandon suicidal individuals in the midst of a crisis under the guise of respecting their autonomy is socially irresponsible. It undermines sound medical ethics and erodes social solidarity.
- The Act will undermine the ability of patients to get adequate medical care. Patients with a terminal illness are exquisitely vulnerable to any suggestion from their physicians, their health care team, and their insurers that they are becoming too expensive to care for, or too burdensome.