SACRAMENTO - Allowing the terminally ill to end their own lives is generally a popular notion among Californians. It is also not likely to happen anytime soon.

The most recent setback in the right-to-die movement -- a Senate committee rejected proposed legislation -- once again illustrates the power of a highly motivated coalition of opponents that has defeated four attempts since 1992.

Advocates of assisted suicide insist the issue is around to stay but that it is too early to say how or when they may bring the emotionally charged issue back. When they do bring it back, they will encounter stiff opposition led by the Coalition Against Assisted Suicide, a group of more than two dozen organizations, including the powerful California Catholic Conference.

"If you have a well-organized, strong grass-roots opposition -- and it was a broad, broad coalition -- it's very difficult to rush something through," said Wayne Johnson, a Republican strategist who served as a consultant to the coalition. "And this is a niche issue, one of those odd little issues that don't have a large constituency who probably aren't the most organized."

The issue is steeped in emotion. Proponents believe it provides the terminally ill with an option that can end suffering. Opponents are equally adamant that it devalues life and offends strongly held religious or ethical beliefs.

The most recent version, AB 651, would have allowed a physician to prescribe a self-administered, life-ending drug for an adult who requested it, had been found by two doctors to be mentally competent, and was within six months of death.

It failed to get out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Sen. Joe Dunn, a Santa Ana Democrat and the committee chairman, cast the decisive "no" vote on the five-member committee. But even if it had reached the Senate floor, opponents say they had enough votes to block it there and in the Assembly.

"The big issues often take time to pass," said Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, a co-author of AB 651. "Each time, we get closer to our goal. All I can tell you is we're not giving up. I'm just not going to walk away from the issue. We'll continue to build public pressure and support."

The bill was modeled after an eight-year-old Oregon law upheld earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court. Oregon remains the only state that allows assisted suicide.

"I'm just not sure where we go from here right now," said Barbara Lee Coombs, the president of Compassion & Choices, the Oregon-based lobbying group that organized the effort to pass the California measure. "We're kind of reeling. It will take a while to find our sea legs again."

Polls typically have shown broad majority support for right-to-die policies -- 70 percent of Californians in the most recent Field Poll in March. But the opposition has done a better job selling its viewpoint, said Larry Gerston, a political science professor at San Jose State.

Interest groups such as the Catholic Conference, Right to Life of California and the California Disability Alliance urged members to flood the Legislature with calls, gathered petitions and made Capitol visits to voice their opposition.

"It's about the intensity of the minority," Gerston said. "Most folks are for assisted suicide or death with dignity. But the fervor isn't the same among the masses."

Paul Longmore, the director of the Institute on Disability at San Francisco State, said he plans to remain vigilant against right-to-die legislation.

"It was a major victory for the alliance of groups opposing this, but the battle will go on," he said. "It's clear proponents are not ready to give up completely. I don't think we can relax."

Social movements are slow to build, especially in clashes of absolutes, said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at Sacramento State.

"Nobody wants to take on the Catholic Church," O'Connor said. "It's not done easily. It's a question of changing values over time. And values are more resistant to change than beliefs or opinions."

A spokeswoman for the Catholic Conference referred all questions to the coalition.

When the issue was on the ballot in 1992, the Catholic Conference pumped millions into last-minute ads, overcoming what had been a deficit in the polls. Advocates are reluctant to try it again on the ballot.

"They (the opposition) will always be determined; they will always be well funded, and this will always be an uphill battle," said Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Eureka, another co-author of AB 651. "But public opinion is with us. We'll be a little closer to victory the next time this bill comes up."

It did not help, though, that Dunn, who voted against the bill, has a relationship with groups opposed to the legislation, including the California Catholic Conference and the California Medical Association.

Dunn, who has a large Catholic constituency in his Orange County district, spoke twice to Orange County Auxiliary Bishop Jaime Soto, but said the conversations were strictly about process. He also has received $13,000 from the state's medical association in the past two years, largely for his failed bid for state controller this spring.

But, Dunn said, his vote against the measure -- which blocked it from reaching the Senate floor -- was a matter of conscience.

"The fact that the CMA and I had a relationship with each other had absolutely no role in my vote," Dunn said. "In my eight years here, I've not given more deliberation to my vote as I did for this. It was very difficult for me."

Dunn cited "slippery slope" fears that future legislatures would fall prey to financial pressures and extend aid-in-dying to patients suffering from pain but not terminally ill.

Dunn said he came to his decision after lengthy conversations with UC Davis bioethicist Ben Rich, who argued in favor of the measure.

"At the end of the dialogue," Dunn said, "he could not answer what I felt was the final question about the risk of future expansion of opportunities to exercise this option."

Rich said he was dismayed.

"People use slippery slope arguments in a fast and loose way," Rich said. "There is a profound and deeply disturbing cynicism about both the law and government in that view."

The right-to-die movement's biggest ally, Gerston said, may be time.

"The baby boomers will bring this to the fore," Gerston said. "As more people get to that critical point, the critical mass will bring this to a level of intensity that it will be back before the Legislature or the ballot. Demographics will continue to place this issue higher and higher on the agenda."

EXPLANATION OF THE BILL

Under AB 651, a terminally ill adult expected to die within six months could get a prescription from his or her doctor to self-administer medication to hasten the end of life.

The doctor would have to verify the patient is making an informed decision before writing a prescription, then wait at least 15 days after the first oral request before writing a prescription for the medication.

The bill also would grant immunity to physicians from civil or criminal liability or professional disciplinary action for participating, including being present when the patient takes the life-ending medication.

>> back to top

home | search | site guide | contact us | privacy policy