Posted on 06/16/2018 10:47:39 AM PDT by Simon Green
A state appeals court has reinstated -- at least for now -- California's law allowing terminally ill people to end their lives. The Fourth District Court of Appeals in Riverside issued an immediate stay Friday putting the End of Life Option back into effect. The court also gave opponents of its decision until July 2 to file objections.
The law allows adults to obtain a prescription for life-ending drugs if a doctor has determined that they have six months or less to live.
Riverside County Superior Court Judge Daniel Ottolia declared the law unconstitutional last month, stating that it had been adopted illegally because lawmakers passed it during a special Legislative session called to address other matters. Ottolia didn't address the issue of whether it's proper for people to end their lives.
Right-to-die advocates hailed Friday's action.
"This stay is a huge win for many terminally ill Californians with six months or less to live because it could take years for the courts to resolve this case," Kevin Díaz, national director of legal advocacy for Compassion & Choices, said in a statement.
"Thankfully, this ruling settles the issue for the time being, but we know we have a long fight ahead before we prevail."
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who had asked the appeals court to stay Ottolia's ruling, also praised the decision.
"This ruling provides some relief to California patients, their families, and doctors who have been living in uncertainty while facing difficult health decisions," Becerra said. "Today's court ruling is an important step to protect and defend the End of Life Option Act for our families across the state."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Dorothy Parker! My Drunken Spirit Animal! :)
‘I like to have a Martini, two at the very most. After three I’m under the table, after four I’m under my host.’
Netherlands.
Wise you are not.
I shall pray for you, may you have a long pain free life. May you have a peaceful death at the end of your life. GOD bless you.
I have no problem with a person’s refusal of treatment, which we have had forever. But, selling them a weapon of some sort, whether it be drugs, knives, or guns, to end it, where someone else makes money from the event, no way. Most people die a miserable death.
In assisted death, the drug makers make money, the administrators make money, insurance makes money, and lawyers make money. Heirs also get their money faster. So, what’s not to like?
You started this by criticizing the article posted by G Larry, that laid out the pitfalls of State Assisted Suicide often disguised as "The Right to Die with Dignity" that began in Oregon back in John Ashcroft days. Calling the argument specious and cautioning that Slippery Slope defenses were not well thought out.
My first comment pointed out a simple slippery slope that slipped whole hog into a State battle with the Church that threatens to abrogate one half of the First Amendment. The weak sister SS decision in the cake case aside, that isn't over yet in fact a printer has already been ordered by a judge to print custom wedding invitations for a gay couple.
In Oregon they are attempting to pass into law the right for the State to decide for you, that you would rather be starved to death than be alive in a mental institution. This bill failed a year or so ago but now the Speaker is the one introducing it. Don't try to tell me Slippery Slope arguments are specious they work exactly the way the name implies.
Just an observation but you sound a lot more like a libertarian than a Conservative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.