Key aspect of California assisted suicide law parsed in federal court

(CN) — People who watch federal courts closely have grown skeptical that persuasion plays much of a role in legal proceedings anymore. Judges have strong ideological predispositions and often have their minds made up on how they are going to rule before the hearings commence and there’s not much lawyerly rhetoric can do to change all of that, the conventional thinking goes.

But Thursday’s hearing on the California End of Life Option Act, which allows terminally ill patients to request a drug from physicians that will end their life, provided a powerful counterexample.

“I’m extremely skeptical that the plaintiffs can prevail in their case,” said U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria at the outset of a hearing.

The plaintiffs want to include a provision into the assisted suicide statute, signed into law in 2016, that allows physicians to help physically disabled patients ensure their end-of-life prescription medication is properly administered.

“As long as a patient can begin the process with a physical act, they should be allowed assistance from a physician,” said Cat Cabalo, attorney for patients seeking the change to the law.

Cabalo said some patients are so physically incapacitated by their disease or old age and infirmity that they can begin the assisted suicide process as required by the law but lack the strength to complete the action.

In those cases, patients could administer enough medicine to make them sick and pass out, but they will sometimes come to, confused and traumatized.

“That’s what this case is about?” Chhabria asked at one point.

“Yes, your honor, this is, in part, what this case is about,” Cabalo responded. “Physicians’ hands are tied.”

By the end of the hearing Chhabria appeared more favorably disposed toward Cabalo than the arguments of the attorneys representing the state of California, who contended such an alteration would fundamentally alter the concept of assisted suicide, which must be confined to the will of the patient.

“This is basically asking a physician to perform euthanasia and there is no language in the statute that permits that,” said Dane Barca, California’s deputy attorney general.

But Cabalo said that since the patient begins the process, it is not euthanasia but a form of legalized assisted suicide, the process of which is presided over and guided by a physician.

She says not allowing this carveout is a violation of the American With Disabilities Act, because it disallows physically disabled persons from participating in a legally sanctioned activity available to their able-bodied peers.

“So once the state decides to give people the ability to commit suicide, the state is required to go a little bit farther to accommodate the disabled who have the right to have their doctor give it to them?” Chhabria asked.

Cabalo said that was an accurate characterization of her argument.

Kevin Quade, another attorney with the state of California, argued that the statute makes it clear that assisted suicide is binary.

“Either the patient does it or does not do it,” he said.

But it appeared given the line of questioning that Chhabria pursued with the state attorneys that he became more and more persuaded that Cabalo did indeed have a point about where the ADA laws intersected with California’s assisted suicide law.

“The line between assisted suicide and euthanasia is so sharp,” he said. “It’s a deep moral and philosophical question that people have been struggling with since the beginning of time.”

On Thursday, it was clear that old-fashioned lawyering may have moved the needle on that weighty question. Nevertheless, Chhabria did not rule from the bench and did not ultimately indicate which way he will rule.

A ruling is expected within the next few weeks.

Follow @MatthewCRenda