BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Version: March 17, 2015 Hearing Date: April 7, 2015 Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No RD SUBJECT End of life DESCRIPTION This bill would enact the End of Life Option Act (Act) to permit competent, terminally ill, California residents over the age of 18 who meet certain criteria to request aid-in-dying medication to be self-administered by the individual for the purpose of ending his or her life. This bill would establish procedures that both seek to effectuate informed decisions and protect individuals from obtaining such medication as a result of coercion or undue influence. This bill would provide the qualified individual with a broad right of rescission; would authorize providers to decline the patient's request, for reasons of conscience, morality, or ethics; and would include various immunities and protections against sanctions for participating health care providers and, more limitedly, non-participating providers, as specified. This bill would also include requirements for unused aid-in-dying medications; specify the effect that participation in activities authorized by the bill would have on wills, contracts, and insurance policies; specify the cause of death for death certificates; provide various reporting requirements; and create two new felonies. (This analysis reflects author's amendments to be offered in Committee.) BACKGROUND Currently, only five states authorize what is called "death with dignity." While Oregon and Washington both have very similar voter initiative laws authorizing the practice, which took SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 2 of ? effect in 1997 and 2009, respectively, Vermont was the first state to enact such a law by way of the legislative process in 2013. In two other states, Montana and New Mexico, judicial decisions have effectively authorized doctors to engage in such practices. In California, on at least six occasions, this Legislature has considered various iterations of a death with dignity law and those bills all died or otherwise failed passage at various points in the legislative process. (See Prior Legislation, below.) This last year, the life and death of a 29-year old Californian, Brittany Maynard, refocused significant national attention and reignited arguments surrounding the issue of the right to die, or the right for the terminally ill to make end of life choices. Suffering from stage IV glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive form of terminal brain cancer, Ms. Maynard publically spoke of her decision to leave her home in California for the state of Oregon so that she could take advantage of the "Death with Dignity Act." On November 1, 2014, Ms. Maynard died in Oregon after taking aid-in-dying medication pursuant to Oregon's law. Toward the end of her life, Ms. Maynard partnered with Compassion & Choices, a supporter of this bill, to launch an effort to expand access to this medical practice across the country and in California. In addition to SB 128, the authors of this bill indicate that 24 other states are considering aid-in-dying or death with dignity related bills. Additionally, earlier this year, the Disability Rights Legal Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of three Californians with cancer, and three California physicians who regularly care for terminally ill patients to clarify that when physicians provide aid in dying to mentally competent, terminally ill patients they do not violate California law. (Brody v. Harris et al., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-15-544086, Feb. 11, 2015.) This bill, modeled largely upon the Oregon and Washington laws, would extend the availability of aid-in-dying medication to qualifying California residents over the age of 18, if certain criteria are met. The bill would include various immunities and protections against sanctions and would recognize the right of health care providers to opt out of participating in activities authorized by the bill. This bill was heard by the Senate Health Committee on March 25, 2015 and was passed out on a vote of 6-2 with amendments to be SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 3 of ? taken in this Committee. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing case law provides that a competent adult has a fundamental right to accept or reject medical treatment, including the right to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment that may cause or hasten death. (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health (1990) 497 U.S. 261.) Existing case law upheld a state prohibition against the aiding of a suicide and held that prohibitions against assisted suicide do not violate a person's fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause. The Court held that the ban was rational in that it furthered such compelling state interests as the preservation of human life and the protection of the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. (Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) 521 U.S. 702; see also Vacco v. Quill (1997) 521 U.S. 793, 801 [a state ban on physician-assisted suicide does not violate the Equal Protection Clause].) Existing law provides that one who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide is guilty of a felony. (Pen. Code Sec. 401.) This bill would enact the End of Life Option Act (Act) to authorize a person who qualifies under the requirements of the bill to request and obtain aid-in-dying medication from his or her attending physician pursuant to specified procedures. This bill would authorize a competent, qualified individual who is a terminally ill adult to make a request to receive a prescription for aid-in-dying medication if: 1)the qualified individual's attending physician has determined the individual to be suffering from a terminal illness; 2)the qualified individual has voluntarily expressed the wish to receive aid-in-dying medication; 3)the qualified individual is a resident of California and is able to establish residency through one of four specified means; and 4)the qualified individual documents his or her request pursuant to bill's the oral and written request requirements. SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 4 of ? This bill would prohibit a person from qualifying based solely on age or disability and prohibits a request from being made on behalf of the patient through a power of attorney, an advance health care directive, or a conservator. This bill would provide that a qualified individual wishing to receive a prescription for aid-in-dying medication pursuant to the bill must submit two oral requests, a minimum of 15 days apart, and a written request to his or her attending physician. The bill would require that the attending physician receive all three requests and further provides requirements that a written request must be in order to be valid. Among other things, the written request must be witnessed by at least two adults who, in the presence of the qualified individual, attest that to the best of their knowledge and belief the qualified individual is competent, acting voluntarily, and not being coerced to sign the request. This bill would limit who may serve as a witness and would prohibit the attending physician of the qualified individual from serving as one of the required witnesses. This bill would require an attending physician to take specified steps before prescribing aid-in-dying medication. Specifically, the attending physician must: 1)make the initial determination of whether the requesting adult is competent, has a terminal illness, has voluntarily made the request for aid-in-dying medication pursuant to the Act's specifications regarding oral and written requests, and is a qualified individual, as specified; 2)ensure that the qualified individual is making an informed decision by discussing: the medical diagnosis and prognosis; the potential risks of taking the aid-in-dying medication to be prescribed; the probable result of taking the aid-in-dying medication to be prescribed; the possibility that he or she may choose to obtain the medication but not take it; and the feasible alternatives or additional treatment opportunities, including, but not limited to, comfort care, hospice care, palliative care, and pain control; 1)refer the qualified individual to a consulting physician for medical confirmation of the diagnosis, prognosis, and for a SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 5 of ? determination that the qualified individual is competent and has complied with the provisions of this bill; 2)refer the qualified individual for counseling, if appropriate, at which point no aid-in-dying medication may prescribed until it is determined that the patient is not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment; 3)ensure that the qualified individual's request does not arise from coercion or undue influence by another person by discussing alone whether or not the qualified individual is feeling coerced or undue influence by another person; 4)counsel the qualified individual about certain matters, including, for example, notifying next of kin of his or her request, and participating in a hospice program; 5)inform the qualified individual that he or she may rescind the request for aid-in-dying medication at any time and in any manner; 6)offer the qualified individual an opportunity to rescind the request for medication before prescribing the aid-in-dying medication; 7)verify, immediately prior to writing the prescription for medication, that the qualified individual is making an informed decision; 8)ensure that all appropriate steps are carried out in accordance with this bill before writing a prescription for aid-in-dying medication; and 9)fulfill the record documentation requirements of the bill, as specified. This bill would permit the attending physician to deliver the aid in dying medication, as specified, if the conditions set forth above are satisfied. The bill would require signature at delivery, if delivery is made by personal delivery, United Parcel Services, U.S. Postal Service, Federal Express, or by messenger service. This bill would specify that, before a qualified individual can obtain aid-in-dying medication from the attending physician, the consulting physician must: 1)examine the qualified individual and his or her relevant medical records; 2)provide written confirmation of the attending physician's diagnosis and prognosis; 3)verify, in his or her own opinion, that the qualified SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 6 of ? individual is competent, acting voluntarily, and has made an informed decision; and 4)fulfill the record documentation requirements of the bill, as specified. This bill would require the following be documented in the individual's medical record: all oral and written requests for aid-in-dying medication; specified information from the attending physician as to the qualifications of the individual (or lack thereof) and as to whether the qualified individual is capable, acting voluntarily and making an informed decision; specified information from the consulting physician; a report of the outcome and determinations made during counseling, if performed; the attending physician's offer to the qualified individual to rescind his or her request at the time of the qualified individual's second oral request; and a note by the attending physician indicating that specified requirements have been met and indicating the steps taken to carry out the request, as specified. This bill would establish a form for aid-in-dying medication and require a written request for aid-in-dying medication substantially comply with that form. This bill would generally require that the written request be written in the same translated language as any conversations, or consultations between a patient and his or her attending or consulting physicians, but the bill would also permit a written request to be prepared in English in those circumstances as long as the form is accompanied by an interpreter's declaration that is signed under penalty of perjury. The bill would prohibit an interpreter from being related to the qualified individual by blood, marriage, or adoption or being entitled to a portion of the person's estate upon death, and would require that the interpreter meet specified standards. This bill would permit the attending physician to sign the qualified individual's death certificate, unless otherwise prohibited by law. This bill would require that the cause of death listed be the underlying terminal illness. SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 7 of ? This bill would prohibit the sale, procurement, or issuance of a life, health, accident insurance or annuity policy, health care service plan contract, or health benefit plan, or the rate charged for a policy or plan contract from being conditioned upon or affected by a person making or rescinding a request for aid-in-dying medication. This bill would provide that notwithstanding any other law, a qualified individual's act of self-administering aid-in-dying medication may not have an effect upon insurance or annuity policies other than that of a natural death from the underlying illness. This bill would provide that to the extent that a provision in a contract, will, or other agreement, whether written or oral, would affect whether a person may make or rescind a request for aid-in-dying medication, such a provision is not valid. This bill would prohibit an obligation owing under any contract in effect on January 1, 2016, from being conditioned or affected by a qualified individual making or rescinding a request for aid-in-dying medication. This bill would provide for specified immunities from civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action. The bill would require participation in activities under this Act to be voluntary and would permit providers to opt out of participation as specified. If a health care provider is unable or unwilling to carry out an individual's request under this Act and the individual transfers care to a new health care provider, the bill would require that the prior health care provider transfer, upon request, a copy of the individual's relevant medical records to the new health care provider. The bill would also specify that its provisions do not prevent a health care provider from providing an individual with health care services that do not constitute participation under this Act. This bill would preclude a request by an individual to an attending physician or to a pharmacist to dispense or provide aid-in-dying medication in good faith compliance with the provisions of this Act from constituting neglect or elder abuse for any purpose of law or providing the sole basis for the appointment of a guardian or conservator. This bill would prohibit a health care provider from being sanctioned for specified acts, but would allow for sanctions for conduct and actions not included and provided for in this Act if the conduct and actions do not comply with the standards and SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 8 of ? practices set forth by the Medical Board. This bill would create two new felonies for specified acts in violation of the Act but the penalties would not preclude criminal penalties applicable under any law for conduct inconsistent with this Act, nor would they limit further liability for civil damages resulting from other negligent conduct or intentional misconduct by any person. This bill would prohibit the provisions of this Act from being construed to authorize any person or physician to end an individual's life by lethal injection, mercy killing, or active euthanasia and would prohibit actions taken in accordance with this Act from constituting suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or elder abuse, for any purpose. This bill would provide for specified reporting requirements. This bill would specify requirements for the custody and control of any unused aid-in-dying medication prescribed pursuant to this Act. This bill would provide that any governmental entity that incurs costs resulting from a qualified individual terminating his or her life pursuant to this Act in a public place (in violation of the bill) has a claim against the individual's estate to recover those costs as well as reasonable attorney fees related to enforcing the claim. This bill would define various terms for these purposes including the following: "Competent" means that in the opinion of a court or in the opinion of an individual's attending physician, consulting physician, psychiatrist, or psychologist, the individual has the ability to make and communicate an informed decision (as otherwise defined by the bill) to health care providers, including communication through a person familiar with the individual's manner of communicating. "Qualified individual" means a competent adult who is a resident of California and has satisfied the requirements of this bill in order to obtain a prescription for medication to end his or her life. "Terminal illness" means an incurable and irreversible illness that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 9 of ? medical judgment, result in death within six months. This bill includes various finding and declarations and would provide that the provisions of this Act are severable, as specified. COMMENT 1. Stated need for the bill According to the authors: When a health care provider, as defined, makes a diagnosis that a patient has a terminal illness, existing law requires the health care provider to notify, except as specified, the patient or, when applicable, the other person authorized to make health care decisions, when the health care provider makes a diagnosis that a patient has a terminal illness, of the patient's and the other authorized person's right to comprehensive information and counseling regarding legal end-of-life care options. Currently, in the state of California, a terminally ill patient can find alternative ways to end his or her life but does not have the legal right when facing death to engage in an informed and deliberate act of self-administered life ending prescription that can be both peaceful and compassionate to the patient and family members without being recognized as suicide, with all that label carries both legally and emotionally. SB 128 would give a terminally ill, mentally competent California adult resident the legal right to ask and receive a prescription for aid-in-dying medication when specified criteria are met, adding to the End of Life Care list of options currently existing [under California law]. Modeled on Oregon's 1997 legislation[,] it requires two physicians to confirm a prognosis of six months or less to live, a written request and two oral requests to be made a minimum of 15 days apart, and two witnesses to attest to that request. The two physicians must also ensure that the patient has the mental capacity to make health care decisions for him or herself. [ . . . ] The authors also assert that "Californians overwhelmingly support death with dignity." Citing a survey conducted by SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 10 of ? Goodwin Simon Strategic Research for Compassion & Choices in July 2014, the authors write the data shows "nearly 64 percent of California likely 2014 voters would favor a death-with-dignity measure. Less than a quarter (24 [percent]) would oppose the measure. Strong support (36 [percent]) outweighs strong opposition (17 [percent]) by more than a two-to-one margin." In support of the bill, Compassion & Choices writes that expanded options at the end of life would provide California citizens the autonomy they deserve. "All Californians should have the option, in consultation with their families and doctors, to make the end-of-life decisions that are right for them in the final stages of a terminal illness. These should include the option to request a prescription from their doctor to end their dying process painlessly and peacefully. [This bill] would give dying Californians this important option." The American Medical Student Association (AMSA), also in support, writes that 20 years of data collected in Oregon "demonstrates that the law works as intended with no substantiated reports of abuse or coercion. In fact, Oregon's law has resulted in improved end of life pain management and increased use of hospice for all dying patients. For many people facing the prospect of a painful or difficult death, simply knowing the medication is available has a palliative effect." Many other groups the echo similar arguments support. The Congress of California Seniors, among others, adds that "providing terminally ill patients with this humane choice is preferable to the desperate and covert self-help practices some patients are currently forced to employ." The AIDS Healthcare Foundation adds, in support of the bill that when a person with HIV reaches the end of life with treatment options no longer available, it is inhumane that we fail to provide them with the choice that would bring them peace. The Secular Coalition for California (SCCA) supports SB 128, writing that the bill is consistent with the U.S. Constitution, protects freedom of belief in California, insofar as it would "enable Californians of all belief systems, both religious and non-religious, to make certain end of life choices that are consistent with their beliefs. Refusing to pass this bill will, in effect, force millions of Californians to abide by religious rules to which they do not subscribe." In contrast, SCCA SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 11 of ? argues, "[i]mplementing death with dignity in California would not directly impact religious individuals." Numerous individuals, including leaders of faith, also write in support of the bill, at times relaying personal experiences that have led them to support this legislation. The letters received in response to this bill also reflects the registered support of almost one hundred physicians, many of whom write about witnessing patients suffer horrifically painful deaths because the standard of care medication management and surgery is not effective at controlling terminal pain. 2. U.S. Supreme Court cases on constitutional right to die This bill would enact the End of Life Option Act to effectively create a statutory right to ask for and obtain aid-in-dying medication by certain qualifying adults, pursuant to specified requirements and procedures. In doing so, the bill implicates questions as to the constitutional and/or statutory rights of individuals to obtain such medication at the end of their life. Generally, there is a constitutional right of individuals to refuse medical treatment. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that a competent adult has a constitutional right to withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatment that may cause or hasten death. (Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health (1990) 497 U.S. 261.) The Cruzan Court also recognized that states have an important interest in protecting life and ensuring that a person desired the end of life treatment before it is suspended, and thus can require clear and convincing evidence that a person wanted treatment terminated before it is cut off. Further, the Court held that states can also prevent family members from terminating treatment for another as the right to do so belongs to the individual. (Id. at 281, 286; see Chemerinksy, Constitutional Law Principles and Policies (2011) 4th Edition, pp. 871-872.) In two cases, Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) 521 U.S. 702 and Vacco v. Quill (1997) 521 U.S. 793, the Supreme Court upheld facial challenges to state laws that prohibited the aiding of a suicide, drawing a distinction between refusing treatment, even where it might hasten death, and physician assisted suicide. In those cases, the Court held that the state laws did not violate SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 12 of ? either a fundamental right under the due process clause (Glucksberg) or the equal protection clause (Vacco)-in other words, the Court found no constitutional right to physician assisted suicide. At the same time, the decisions left open the possibility that legal protection could be afforded to such laws as a matter of state law or future Supreme Court rulings. (See Chemerinksy, Constitutional Law Principles and Policies (2011) 4th Edition, pp. 872-875.) To this end, Justice O'Conner, joined by Justices Ginsberg and Breyer, wrote that while there "is no generalized right to 'commit suicide,'" the Court need not address the "narrower question whether a mentally competent person who is experiencing great suffering has a constitutionally cognizable interest in controlling the circumstances of his or her death." (Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 737 (J. O'Conner, concurring.) Similarly, Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer, wrote in his separate concurrence to specify that there "is also room for further debate about the limits that the Constitution places on the power of the states to punish the practice." (Id. at 739 (J. Stevens, concurring).) The justices recognized that "[t]he Cruzan case demonstrated that some state intrusions on the right to decide how death will be encountered are also intolerable" and "[a]lthough there is no absolute right to physician-assisted suicide, Cruzan makes it clear that some individuals who no longer have the option of deciding whether to live or to die because they are already on the threshold of death have a constitutionally protected interest that may outweigh the State's interest in preserving life at all costs. The liberty interest at stake in a case like this differs from, and is stronger than, both the common-law right to refuse medical treatment and the unbridled interest in deciding whether to live or die. It is an interest in deciding how, rather than whether, a critical threshold shall be crossed." (Id. at 745.) While it remains to be seen whether there is in fact a more limited, as opposed to absolute, constitutional right to die in some limited cases, the states have the ability to decide this issue pursuant to the political process and as a matter of a statutory right. To the extent that this bill would create, as a matter of state law, a right to request and receive aid-in-dying medication, it is arguably important that the person exercising any such right SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 13 of ? be the person who holds the right. (See discussion of Cruzan, above.) At minimum, to exercise the right to request and obtain aid-in-dying medication, the person must be at least 18 or older, suffering from a terminal illness, competent, and able to make voluntarily communicate this request, both oral and in writing, to his or her attending physician. Significantly, this bill would not only limit who may exercise this statutory right, consistent with the state's compelling interest to preserve life and prevent coercion, but it also would prohibit a request from being made on behalf of the patient through a power of attorney, an advance health care directive, or a conservator. 3. Safeguards for patients Under this bill, to qualify for aid-in-dying medication, a person must be a competent, terminally ill adult who (1) is a "California resident" (2) has been determined by his or her attending physician to be suffering from a "terminal" illness, (3) has voluntarily expressed a wish to receive aid-in-dying medication, and (4) has documented the request. Notably, the bill prohibits a person from qualifying based solely on age or disability and prohibits a request from being made on behalf of the patient through a power of attorney, an advance health care directive, or a conservator. The bill's safeguards include not just initial competency determinations, but also: second opinions; waiting periods; medical record documentation; witnesses; counseling when appropriate; an additional confirmation of informed decision immediately prior to the writing of the prescription; and the mandated disposal of unused medication. a. Competency First and foremost, in order to qualify to obtain aid-in-dying medication from one's attending physician, the individual must be competent. The bill defines "competent" to mean that, in the opinion of a court or in the opinion of an individual's attending physician, consulting physician, psychiatrist, or psychologist, the individual has the ability to make and communicate an "informed decision" to health care providers, including communication through a person familiar with the individual's manner of communicating. The proponents of the bill note that the intent of including SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 14 of ? the "manner of communicating" language above is merely to allow accommodation for people who may communicate by ASL (American Sign Language) or other non-verbal or assisted language. This could include those who are unable to speak due to the underlying condition, such as tongue or throat cancer-such persons would be able to use the law either by writing out their wishes in the presence of the physicians or having someone who is familiar with their manner of communicating interpret their speech pattern. b. Terminal illness As stated above, this bill would only allow for aid-in-dying medication to be prescribed to adults who meet specified requirements, including a requirement that the adult have been determined by his or her attending physician to be suffering from a terminal illness. The bill would define "terminal illness" to mean an incurable and irreversible illness that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months. While this bill has been substantially modeled upon the Oregon and Washington laws, those laws use the language "terminal disease," instead of "terminal illness." There is an argument to be made that terminal illness is a broader term that applies as much to the feeling of being unwell, as it does to a diagnosable condition that is an abnormality in one's body, such as cancer, or ALS (commonly known to as Lou Gehrig's disease). Accordingly, amendments are suggested to bring the bill's terminology in line with Oregon and Washington's laws and use the more specific term of "disease" instead of the more general term "illness." Suggested amendments : replace references to "terminal illness" with "terminal disease" and references to "a terminally ill individual" with "an individual with a terminal disease" With regard to the definition of terminal illness, itself, many of the bill's opponents have raised concerns about the definition's reliance on an "arbitrary" or "unreliable" six month life expectancy prognosis. For example, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) and California Disability Alliance (CDA) argue that doctors typically cannot make six SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 15 of ? month prognoses with an acceptable level of certainty and that, in fact, the disability community is full of people who have outlived "six month" prognoses - at times, by decades. The Medical Oncology Association of Southern California similarly expresses concern about this provision because "it is notoriously difficult for physicians to know when their patients are truly 'terminal.'" The Association of Northern California Oncologists (ANCO) adds that data from Oregon finds that many patients who have been prescribed life-ending medications due to their "terminal" diagnosis have lived more than a year after the prescription has been filled. In response to these concerns, proponents point out that six months corresponds with the Medicare requirement for one to enroll in hospice-accordingly, it is usual and customary for physicians to make these determinations. In addition, it was reasoned by a proponent of the bill that most of the patients requesting aid-in-dying would enroll in hospice, which they argue has proven to be true. "In Oregon, 93 percent of the patients who use the law are enrolled in hospice at the time they consume the lethal dose of medication, which is almost twice the percentage of hospice penetration in Oregon." Moreover, others proponents argue that studies show that even though prognoses are often inaccurate, they are overwhelmingly inaccurate in overestimating, not underestimating the time of death. Accordingly, if a doctor makes a six month prognosis, they believe it usually means death will occur within a shorter time frame. c. Written requests and witness requirements of the bill The bill requires that the qualified individual not only make two oral requests that are 15 days apart, but that he or she also provide his or her attending physician with a written request that meets certain criteria. In order for a written request to be valid, it must not only be provided substantially in the same form as the statutory form prescribed in the bill, but it must be signed and dated by the individual seeking the medication, and be witnessed by at least two other adult persons. Namely, the witnesses must attest that to the best of their knowledge and belief, the qualified individual is: (1) competent; (2) acting voluntarily; and (3) not being coerced to sign the request. Only one of those individuals may be either: (1) related to SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 16 of ? the qualified individual by blood, marriage, or adoption or entitled to a portion of the person's estate upon death; or (2) own, operate, or be employed at a health care facility where the qualified individual is receiving medical treatment or resides. While Vermont, the only state to have legislatively enacted an end of life or death with dignity statute, does not permit for either of the witnesses to be "interested witnesses," the proponents argue that such a restriction against interested witnesses altogether would be unduly burdensome on qualified individuals. The proponents further argue that the ability for one witness to be an "interested witness" has benefits in rural areas (many times in rural areas the patient may not be able to find two people outside of the family who are willing and able to be witnesses), and helps protect the patient's privacy by making it less likely that others outside of the patient's inner circle will find out that the patient is considering the use of aid-in-dying medication. It could also be argued that it helps increase the chance that someone in the patient's family is aware of the patient's decision. 4. Immunities and protections against sanctions This bill includes various protections against civil and criminal liability, as well as professional disciplinary actions or sanctions for those who participate in activities authorized under the bill. The bill also includes limited protections for those who opt to exercise their right to not participate in the bill. a. Immunity from civil and criminal liability and professional disciplinary actions While immunity provisions generally raise policy questions because they preclude injured parties from seeking redress for their injuries, it is arguable that this bill would be rendered ineffective absent protections that would assure providers that they will not be subjected to civil or criminal liability, or professional discipline. Arguably, this is particularly true given that perception of the physician's legal and ethical duty to this subset of terminal patients in regard to this specific type of end of life care is one that is still shifting within the medical community itself, and SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 17 of ? given that the existing anti-suicide statute in the Penal Code (providing that every person who deliberately aids, or advises, or encourages another to commit suicide, is guilty of a felony) might deter participation as well. (Pen. Code Sec. 401.) Accordingly, the bill would provide that a person shall not be subject to civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for participating in good faith compliance with this Act, including an individual who is present when a qualified individual self-administers the prescribed aid-in-dying medication. In opposition to the bill, Dignity Health (among others) questions the use of a good faith standard in limiting civil and criminal liability, instead of requiring that people strictly follow the requirements of the Act. In particular, they believe that by inserting the good faith standard, SB 128 makes a de facto change to current criminal law (the anti-suicide statute referenced above). They argue that good faith is "something nearly impossible to disprove, making all of the other requirements unenforceable. Once the patient obtains the lethal dose of drugs under SB 128, there is absolutely no transparency on the appropriate use of these drugs by the patient or others. It would be extremely difficult to prove any wrongdoing when the only reliable witness to a potential felony is now deceased and others present will not discuss what occurred." Staff notes, however, that good faith is a common, fact specific, standard that the courts are well versed in applying in cases, even in complex areas such as commercial law. The author further notes that: Physicians are trusted to dispense and prescribe lethal doses of medications all the time - Oxycodone, Oxycontin, Fentanyl patches, etc., with physicians and pharmacists providing directions on how to take the medications and they do so without being required to stand over the patients to make certain they take them properly. Adding the stricter provisions will make physicians less likely to participate knowing that the medical standards are greater than any other part of their practice and the risk is too great to take. To require more than a good faith standard would SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 18 of ? criminalize minor technical omissions, like not checking a box on a form, or falling short by a few hours in the duration of a waiting period. Physicians will not participate if these sorts of minor technical errors would deprive them of the safety of the safe harbor and expose them to criminal penalties. In Oregon minor technical errors are reported to the board of medical examiners. They conduct an investigation and measure physician compliance against a good faith standard." b. Protections against sanctions for specified activities This bill prohibits a health care provider from being sanctioned for various actions taken pursuant to this Act, including: (1) making an initial determination pursuant to the standard of care that an individual has a terminal illness and informing him or her of the medical prognosis; (2) providing information about the End of Life Option Act to a patient upon the request of the individual; and (3) providing an individual, upon request, with a referral to another physician. The bill also includes a provision that seeks to protect doctors who are employed or contracted as an independent contractor with a religious hospital that has opted out of participation in the activities authorized by this Act, when they are not acting within the scope of their employment contracts and duties (i.e. off hours, off site, not on call). The following amendment would revise the sanction to clearly protect those health care providers. Suggested amendment : On page 12, line 28, strike "(d)" and insert "(b) A health care provider that prohibits activities under this part in accordance with subdivision (e) of Section 443.12 may not sanction an individual health care provider for contracting with a qualified individual to engage in activities authorized by this part if the individual health care provider is acting outside of the course and scope of his or her capacity as an employee or independent contractor of the prohibiting health care provider." c. Outstanding issue on provider sanctions SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 19 of ? While this bill is modeled largely upon the Oregon and Washington laws, one of the bigger discrepancies between this bill and the Oregon and Washington laws is that those laws allow for a provider to prohibit activities on its premises by those physicians acting in the course and scope of employment as an employee of that provider. More specifically, both of those states generally allow a health care provider to prohibit another provider from participating in activities authorized by the death with dignity laws of those states, if the policy has been disclosed to the provider. This issue was also raised by the Senate Health Committee analysis, and subsequently the California Hospital Association (CHA) provided language to the authors and committee to address this issue. The CHA proposed language would allow a provider to have a policy prohibiting its employees, independent contractors, and others (including physicians) from participating in activities authorized under the bill while (1) on premises owned or under the management or direct control of the prohibiting provider or (2) while acting within the course and scope of their employment by, or contract with, the prohibiting provider. According to CHA, this second circumstance would address hospital staff, such as home health workers, whose employment with the hospital involves work outside the facility. Similar to Oregon, the language seeks to allow a provider to take adverse action (such as suspension, loss of privileges, etc.) against an individual who violates the policy, but only if certain procedures are adhered to, including providing written notice of the policy before the violation occurs. Notably, the language narrowly defines the activities that may be prohibited by such a policy, and would make it possible for an individual provider, while on a prohibiting provider's premises or while acting within the course and scope of their duties to a prohibiting provider, to have a discussion with a patient in which they reach an agreement that the provider will participate in activities under the bill outside of their work hours/off the premises of the prohibiting provider. Staff notes that, arguably, this would be consistent with that physician's duty to discuss legal end-of-life options with a terminal patient. (See Health & Saf. Code Sec. 442.5.) At the same time, the CHA proposal ensures that, in the event that a provider takes adverse action against a physician or SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 20 of ? other licensed professional for violating its policy against participating in activities authorized by the bill, such action is not reportable as a medical disciplinary cause or reason under specified sections of the Business & Professions Code. The authors are taking the following amendment to incorporate provider sanction language in the bill, based largely on the CHA proposal (with some technical and clarifying modifications): Author's amendment: On page 12, after line 11, before the start of current subdivision (e), insert "(e)(1) Subject to subparagraph (e)(2), notwithstanding any other provision of law, a health care provider may prohibit its employees, independent contractors, or other persons or entities, including other health care providers, from participating in activities under this part while on premises owned or under the management or direct control of that prohibiting health care provider or while acting within the course and scope of any employment by, or contract with, the prohibiting health care provider. (2) A health care provider that elects to prohibit its employees, independent contractors, or other persons or entities, including health care providers, from participating in activities under this part, as described in paragraph (1), shall first give notice of the policy prohibiting participation in this part to the individual or entity. A health care provider that fails to comply with this paragraph, shall not be entitled to enforce such a policy. (3) Subject to compliance with subparagraph (e)(2), the prohibiting health care provider may take action including, but not limited to the following, as applicable, against any individual or entity that violates this policy. (A) Loss of privileges, loss of membership, or other action authorized by the bylaws or rules and regulations of the medical staff. (B) Suspension, loss of employment, or other action authorized by the policies and practices of the prohibiting SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 21 of ? health care provider. (C) Termination of any lease or other contract between the prohibiting health care provider and the individual or entity that violates the policy. (D) Imposition of any other non-monetary remedy provided for in any lease or contract between the prohibiting health care provider and the individual or entity in violation of the policy. (4) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prevent, or to allow a prohibiting health care provider to prohibit any other health care provider, employee, independent contractor, or other person or entity from any of the following: (A) Participating, or entering into an agreement to participate, in activities under this part, while on premises that are not owned or under the management or direct control of the prohibiting provider or while acting outside the course and scope of the participant's duties as an employee of, or independent contractor for, the prohibiting health care provider. (B) Participating, or entering into an agreement to participate, in activities under this part as an attending physician or consulting physician while on premises that are not owned or under the management or direct control of the prohibiting provider. (5) In taking actions pursuant to subparagraph (e)(3), a health care provider must comply with all procedures required by law, its own policies or procedures, or any contract with the individual or entity in violation of the policy, as applicable. (6) For purposes of this subdivision: (A) "Notice" means a separate statement in writing advising of the prohibiting health care provider's policy with respect to participating in activities under this part. (B) "Participating, or entering into an agreement to participate, in activities under this part" means doing or entering into an agreement to do any one or more of the following: performing the duties of an attending physician specified in Section 443.5; performing the duties of a consulting physician specified in Section 443.6; delivering the prescription for, dispensing, or delivering the SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 22 of ? dispensed aid-in-dying medication pursuant to Section 443.5(b)(2) and (c); or being present when the qualified individual takes the aid-in-dying medication prescribed pursuant to this part. "Participating, or entering into an agreement to participate, in activities under this part" does not include means doing or entering into an agreement to do any of the following: (i) Making an initial determination that a patient has a terminal illness and informing the patient of the medical prognosis; (ii) Providing information to a patient about the End of Life Option Act. (iii) Providing a patient, upon the patient's request, with a referral to another health care provider for the purposes of participating in the activities authorized by End of Life Option Act. (7) Any action taken by a prohibiting provider pursuant to this subdivision shall not be reportable under Sections 800-809.9 of the Business and Professions Code. The fact that a health care provider participates in activities under this part shall not be the sole basis for a complaint or report by another health care provider of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct under Sections 800-809.9 of the Business and Professions Code." 5. Interpreters While this bill would generally require that the person seeking to exercise their right to request and obtain aid-in-dying medication modeled upon the Oregon and Washington laws, the bill differs from those other states' laws in that this bill would generally require that the written request be written in the same translated language as any conversations, or consultations between a patient and his or her attending or consulting physicians. The bill would permit a written request to be prepared in English in those same circumstances as long as the form is accompanied by an interpreter's declaration that is signed under penalty of perjury. Notably, the bill would not only require that the interpreter meet standards promulgated by the California Healthcare Interpreters Association or the National Council on Interpreting in Healthcare (organizations that seek to promote and enhance language access, and to improve the quality of language services, in the delivery of health SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 23 of ? care), but would also prohibit the interpreter from being related to the qualified individual by blood, marriage, or adoption or being entitled to a portion of the person's estate upon death. 6. Death certificates The bill would require that the cause of death listed on the death certificate of an individual who uses aid-in-dying medication be the underlying terminal illness. Some opponents, including the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, have raised the issue that listing the cause of death as the underlying illness and not the ingestion of lethal drugs (aid-in-dying medication) is misleading and causes doctors to falsify death certificates. The authors argue that a similar practice has worked in Oregon without a problem. Moreover, this practice removes the stigma and potential conflict with insurers over the use of "suicide," as well as prevents fueling the misnomer of physician-assisted-suicide. Most importantly, the alternative would skew terminal disease and suicide statistical data. Other proponents of this bill add that this language was included to protect the privacy of the individual and the surviving family members. Many times death certificates are sent to financial institutions, the Department of Motor Vehicles, other family members, and so forth. The recipients of these certificates may object to aid-in-dying, thus, potentially causing additional grief for surviving family members at the hands of outsiders who criticize them. For other family members who did not know the decedent died using the law, it may also cause them unnecessary grief or anger. 7. Reporting requirements as a mechanism of oversight This bill would require that the State Public Health Officer annually review a sample of records maintained pursuant to the medical documentation requirements of the bill and to adopt regulations establishing additional reporting requirements, as specified, for physicians and pharmacists pursuant to this Act. The bill mandates that the information collected be confidential and be collected in a manner that protects the privacy of the patient, the patient's family, and any medical provider or pharmacist involved with the patient under the provisions of SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 24 of ? this Act. Based on that information collected, the department would then be required to provide an annual compliance and utilization statistical report aggregated by age, gender, race, ethnicity, and primary language spoken at home and other data that the department deems relevant. A concern has been raised by opposition as to the inadequacy of reporting requirements in other states, such as Oregon. What is important, some opposition feels, is not just what the data shows, but what it does not show. For the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF), the concern is multifaceted: any reporting requirement lacks teeth; non-compliance is not monitored; important questions go unasked; there is no investigation of abuse; there are no autopsies (which would open the door for "another Dr. Krekorian"); and the falsification of death certificates effectively removes transparency. A major element of concern for opposition is that there is potentially no way of knowing for certain if a person was coerced or unduly influenced to ask for this medication, or if the medication was forced on them (as opposed to being self-administered). The perhaps biggest contributor to this problem is lack of an oversight authority or mechanism by which suspected abuses can be reported. Staff notes that the authors may wish to explore the possibility of adding a mechanism by which suspected abuses could be reported to appropriate authorities, and to grant a state agency or local entities with the power to investigate potential abuses of this Act. 8. Concerns regarding insurance Opponents have referred to two Oregon patients with terminal cancer who were sent notifications by an Oregon health plan that denied cancer treatment but offered coverage for end-of-life care, including physician aid-in-dying. The Senate Health Committee suggested that the authors consider amendments to ensure that notifications from health plans regarding aid-in-dying coverage are carefully crafted to not convey a message that a person may interpret as being pressured by the plan to end his or her life earlier than through the natural progression of the terminal illness. While that committee suggested this could be accomplished by the development of model notice, it could also be beneficial to include a prohibition against directly connecting a denial of coverage for treatment SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 25 of ? to the option of obtaining aid-in-dying medication. Accordingly, the following amendment would effectively prohibit any insurance provider from denying coverage of treatment in the same letter that it discusses the possibility of covering aid-in-dying medication for the patient by ensuring that such information is only provided if requested directly by the individual, the individual's doctor at behest of the individual, or the individual's designee. Suggested amendment : On page 11, after line 23, insert "(c) An insurance carrier shall not provide any information in communications made to an individual about the availability of aid-in-dying medication absent a request by the individual, the individual's doctor at behest of the individual, or the individual's designee. Any communication shall not include both the denial of treatment and information as to the availability of aid-in-dying medication coverage. For the purposes of this subdivision, "insurance carrier" means a health care service plan pursuant to Section 1345 or a health insurer pursuant to in Section 106 of the Insurance Code." 9. Oregon The authors provide this Committee with information that one in six dying Oregonians have considered requesting aid-in-dying prescription seriously enough to discuss it with their families, with the most common category of patients considering the prescription being those with cancer and ALS (commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease). Reportedly, the top three concerns given by terminally ill patients requesting the medication from their doctors are: (1) loss of autonomy; (2) inability to participate in activities that make life enjoyable; and (3) loss of dignity. According to family members of Oregonians formally requesting the medication, the top concerns for the requesting patients are being able to control the circumstances of death, wanting to die at home, and fearing loss of dignity. That being said, for every 1,000 Oregonians who die, just 0.2% use aid-in-dying medication. Of 1,173 people who received aid-in-dying prescriptions between the passage of the law and 2013, only 752 have ingested it. Of those consuming the medication, 98 percent are in hospice. SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 26 of ? The authors argue that state-held department records confirm that no instances of abuse or coercion have occurred under Oregon's death-with-dignity law. In fact, the authors write, "[e]nd of life care is overall improved in Oregon since the law's implementation, in part due to the dialogue the death with dignity law encourages and mandates between physicians and patients. Hospice referrals are up, as is the use of morphine for palliative care. Oregon now has the lowest rates of in-hospital deaths and the highest rates of at-home deaths in the nation. 10. California Medical Association letter of concern The California Medical Association (CMA) does not take an official position on SB 128 but has expressed concern that physician assisted suicide contravenes the fundamental principal of the medical profession: "Do no harm." CMA believes that allowing physicians to prescribe fatal medications in this fashion would undermine trust in the doctor-patient relationship, as patients may fear or suspect that physicians will steer them toward physician-assisted suicide rather than pursing a more difficult course of treatment to relieve suffering and allow the natural dying process to occur. CMA also expresses concern that some patients may feel pressured or coerced to accept physician assisted suicide, particularly if the patient feels obligated to relieve their loved ones of the burden of caring for them. Such pressure and coercion would eviscerate true informed consent and leave physicians with the difficult task of detecting and determining such coercion. Further, CMA writes that legalizing this practice would include potential for abuse. Namely, that a "right" to fatal, life-ending medications would become an expectation, and ultimately a duty, fueled by those members of society whose existence is expensive or otherwise could be considered burdensome. 11. Other opposition arguments Many groups in opposition, such as the Medical Oncology Association of Southern California (MOASC), Association of Northern California Oncologists (ANCO), California Disability Alliance (CDA), California Nurses for Ethical Standards, Dignity Health, and the Alliance of Catholic Health Care (as well as SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 27 of ? many individual doctors) echo some, if not all, of the concerns listed by the California Medical Association (CMA) in Comment 10 above. MOASC and ANCO add that they believe legalizing physician assisted suicide will undermine the valuable and overwhelmingly successful work of its colleagues in hospice and pain and palliative care fields. In addition to these ethical-based objections, some opponents, such as the Concerned Women for America, also raise religious or moral-based objections. Others, such as the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers (CFILC), and CDA, raise concerns specific to people who are aging, ill, or disabled. These organizations argue that it is dangerous to enact such a bill in a society where pervasive stigmas persist about living a life with a disability. Some individuals also write in opposition out of particular concern for persons with disabilities. One individual expresses concern that this will prey on the state's "most vulnerable citizens" without sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse. The individual believes the bill will lead to death of disabled patients without their consent through mistake, patient coercion, or abuse. Another individual writes that while he believes in choice, choice can be eliminated among a lack of alternatives and services. CFILC also expresses concern that there are many patients who do not have a terminal condition, but have a serious illness and a disability who can still qualify under the proper circumstances to receive those lethal prescriptions even when there are alternatives such as hospice and palliative care that would ease their pain and discomfort while dying. Additionally, CFILC writes that it is concerned that the dangers and misdiagnoses and premature physician assisted suicide will only increase as California's population ages. It expresses concern that such problems are exacerbated by mandatory managed care plan systems where achieving cost savings is imperative to keep the managed care system operation and authorized health care services are limited. Similarly, Faith & Public Policy emphasizes a concern that costly care will lead to patients feeling obligated to opt for the minimal cost of the lethal drug versus thousands of dollars for long-term care. This, it believes, will cause the poor to suffer under this legislation. Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF) warns that combining a broken, profit-driven healthcare system with doctor-prescribed suicide SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 28 of ? will result in a deadly mix. DREDF argues also that the bill is ripe for elder abuse: "Where assisted suicide is legal, an heir or abusive caregiver can steer someone towards it, witness the request, pick up the lethal does, and even, in the end, given the drug-because no witnesses are required at the death, so who would know?" DREDF lists a host of other potential concerns about doctor shopping, misdiagnoses, harm to depressed people, family pressures, flawed oversight, and more. Many opponents, including CFILC, ASAN, and the Queen of the Valley Medical Center, believe the better approach would be to give individuals diagnosed with terminal illness better access to quality palliative care, in-home supports, counseling, and so forth. ASAN raises concerns that in 2013, only two of the 71 Oregonians who died under the death with dignity law in that state were referred for a formal psychiatric or psychological evaluation. ASAN argues that like Oregon's law, SB 128 fails to require accurate information on pain management and long-term supports or referrals to services such as peer counseling or mental health screening. Sharing concerns about how the bill would impact persons with disabilities, and particularly developmental disabilities, Arc and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration writes that people with developmental disabilities and their families do not believe that any regulations and safeguards will actually protect them adequately from being pressured or even forced into ending their lives prematurely. Opponents such as DREDF and Capitol Resource Institute warn of a slippery slope, citing countries such as the Netherlands or Belgium, where, in the latter case, physician assisted suicide laws have seemingly been "expanded to lift[ ] all age restrictions to [allow] children of any age, Alzheimer's patients and even disabled persons-the deaf and blind-to be euthanized." Alliance of Catholic Health Care similarly raises the concern that what is voluntary today may be mandated tomorrow, and that limits on eligibility will be challenged. Agudath Israel of California writes that while concerns over slippery slopes and a perceived "duty to die" have not come to fruition in Oregon, Washington, or Vermont, California is a much different state and it is therefore not clear that Californians can expect the same result here. SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 29 of ? California Catholic Conference (Conference) writes that the safeguards in this bill are neither responsible nor enforceable, and rejects the argument that the experience in the other states with death with dignity laws should alleviate concerns here. The Conference notes that there is no oversight, no enforcement, and no funding to investigate or enforce the law. Dignity Health and others, such as DREDF (see Comment 7), raise concerns as well about a lack of oversight. Dignity Health and Providence Health & Services further raise concerns about SB 128's silence about what constitutes active euthanasia-both in terms of a definition and in terms of a penalty. "As written, SB 128 has no safeguards to ensure that others present in the room at the time of the attempted suicide do not cross the line and actively end the life of the patient." Similarly these groups raise concerns about the fact that SB 128 does not require that the medication be taken in the presence of the attending physician. At the same time, they question what a person is supposed to do if in the room with the patient and the patient does not die and/or has problems after taking the lethal drugs. Some of the opposition, including the Alliance of Catholic Health Care and the California Hospital Association, question the necessity for this bill, pointing out that California already has tools in place to allow a patient, individual or in consultation with his or her physician, to express and record their end-of-life health care wishes, including foregoing measures that will extend the patient's life. These include Advance Health Care Directives and Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST). 12. Technical and clarifying amendments The following amendments are suggested to ensure consistency and add clarity. Suggested amendments : On page 5, line 36, after "The request shall be signed and dated" insert ", in the presence of two witnesses in accordance with paragraph (3)," On page 7, line 2, strike "medication" and insert SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 30 of ? "aid-in-dying medication" On page 7, line 5, strike "diagnosis, prognosis" and insert "diagnosis and prognosis," On page 7, line 22, strike "medication" and insert "aid-in-dying medication" On page 7, line 25, strike "medication" and insert "aid-in-dying medication" On page 8, line 35-36, strike "on an individual's death certificate who uses aid in dying medication" and insert "on the death certificate of an individual who uses aid-in-dying medication" On page 11, line 12, after "in effect on" insert "or after" On page 11, line 32-33, strike "for participating or refusing to participate in good faith compliance with this part" and insert "for participating in good faith compliance with this part or for refusing to participate in accordance with subdivision (d) of this section." On page 11, strike lines 34-39, and instead after "(c)" insert "(1) A request by a qualified individual to an attending physician to provide aid in dying medication in good faith compliance with the provisions of this part shall not provide the sole basis for the appointment of a guardian or conservator. (2) A request by an individual to a pharmacist to dispense aid-in-dying medication in good faith compliance with the provisions of this part shall not constitute neglect or elder abuse for any purpose of law." On page 12, line 6, strike "otherwise required by law" and insert "required by Sections 442 - 442.7" On page 12, line 8, strike "an individual's" and insert "a qualified individual's" On page 12, line 8, strike "individual" and insert "qualified individual" SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 31 of ? On page 12, line 10, strike "an individual's" and insert "the qualified individual's" On page 12, line 12 strike "(e)" and insert "(f)" On page 12, line 15, insert "(a)" before "A health care provider" On page 12, lines 17, 20, 22, and 24, renumber "(a)," "(b)," and "(c)," to "(1)," "(2)," and "(3)" respectively On page 12, line 28, renumber "(e)" to "(c)" On page 12, line 36, strike "medication" and insert "aid-in-dying medication" On page 12, line 38, strike "medication" and insert "aid-in-dying medication" On page 13, line 2, strike "medication" and insert "aid-in-dying medication" On page 13, strike lines 7-9, inclusive, and insert "(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit civil liability." 13. Author's amendments This bill was approved by the Senate Health Committee on March 25, 2015. Due to procedural timing constraints, the author committed to taking the following amendments in this Committee to: (1)Clarify that the attending physician must receive all three requests (2 oral and 1 written). (2)Prohibit aid-in-dying medication from being prescribed until the person performing the counseling determines that the patient is not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment. (3)Ensure that the individual and physician have a discussion about coercion and undue influence alone and without other family or caregivers present. (4)Require the attending physician to counsel the individual about notifying next of kin. (5)Require the attending physician to counsel the individual SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 32 of ? about participating in hospice. (6)Require the physician to comply with record documentation requirements similar to Oregon. (7)Require a signature when dispensed medication is mailed or delivered by courier. (8)Explicitly specify interpreter standards. The author's amendments also include technical clarifying changes to what was agreed to in Senate Health Committee. Support : AIDS Healthcare Foundation; AIDS Project Los Angeles (APLA); Alameda County Board of Supervisors; American Civil Liberties Union of California (ACLU); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) AFL-CIO; American Medical Student Association (AMSA); American Medical Women's Association (AMWA); California Church IMPACT; California Primary Care Association (CPCA); California Senior Legislature (CSL); Cardinal Point at Mariner Square Residents' Association; City Council of Cathedral City; Civil Rights For Seniors; Compassion & Choices; Conference of California Bar Associations (CCBA); Congress of California Seniors (CCS); County of Santa Cruz, Board of Supervisors; Dave Jones, Insurance Commissioner; Death with Dignity National Center; Democrats of the Napa Valley Club; Democratic Party of Orange County; Democratic Party of Santa Barbara County; Democratic Women of Santa Barbara; Desert Stonewall Democrats; Diane Feinstein, United States Senator; Equality California; GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality; Hemlock Society of San Diego; Gray Panthers of Long Beach; Laguna Woods Democratic Club; Lampoc Valley Democratic Club; Libertarian Party of Orange County; Los Angeles LGBT Center; Napa County Democratic Central Committee (NCDCC); National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter (NASW-CA); National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR); National Council of Jewish Women California (NCJW CA); Older Women's League-SF; Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) California; San Francisco AIDS Foundation; San Francisco for Democracy; San Mateo Democracy for America; Secular Coalition for California; Sierra County Democratic Party; Shared Crossing Project; Social Action and Missions Team of Bloom in the Desert Ministries United Church of Christ, Palm Springs, California; Sonoma County Democratic Party; South Orange County Democratic Club (SOCDC); I Care For Your Loved One: Compassionate Senior Services; Trinity County Progressives; thousands of individuals SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 33 of ? Opposition : Agudath Israel of California; Alliance of Catholic Health Care; ARC and United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration; Arroyo Grande Community Hospital; Association of Northern California Oncologists (ANCO); Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN); California Catholic Conference, Inc.; California Disability Alliance (CDA); California Family Alliance; California Foundation for Independent Living Centers (CFILC); California Hospital Association (CHA); California Nurses for Ethical Standards; California ProLife Council; California Right to Life Committee, Inc.; Calvary Chapel Golden Springs; Capitol Resource Institute; Concerned Women for America; Dignity Health; Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund (DREDF); Faith & Public Policy (ministry of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills; Life Legal Defense Foundation; Life Priority Network; International Life Services; Medical Oncology Association of Southern California (MOASC); Mission Hospital; Mission Hospital Laguna Beach; National Right to Life Committee; North Orange County ProLife Chapter; Pajaro Valley Senior Coalition; Petaluma Valley Hospital; Providence Health & Services; Queen of the Valley Medical Center; Redwood Memorial Hospital, Fortuna; San Joaquin ProLife Council; Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital; Scholl Institute of Bioethics; Silicon Valley Independent Living Center; Sisters of Social Service of Los Angeles; St. Joseph Hospital, Eureka; St. Joseph Hospital, Orange; St. Jude Medical Center; St. Mary Medical Center; thousands of individuals HISTORY Source : Author Related Pending Legislation : None Known Prior Legislation : AB 374 (Berg, 2007) would have enacted the California Compassionate Choices Act to authorize a terminally ill adult who meets certain criteria to request medication prescribed pursuant to this bill. The bill died on the Assembly Floor Inactive File. AB 651 (Berg, 2006), substantially similar to the above, failed passage in this Committee. SB 128 (Wolk and Monning) Page 34 of ? AB 654 (Berg and Levine, 2005), substantially similar to the bills above, died on the Assembly Floor Inactive File. AB 1592 (Aroner, 1999) was almost identical to the Oregon initiative. The bill died on the Assembly Appropriations Suspense File. AB 1310 (Mazzoni, 1995), like AB 1080, was modeled upon the Oregon initiative. The bill died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. AB 1080 (Martinez, 1995) was modeled on the Oregon initiative. The bill died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. Prior Vote : Senate Health Committee: (Ayes 6, Noes 2) **************