A group of people with disabilities is suing to upend California’s assisted suicide law, saying the bias they faced trying to get health care during the pandemic shows the system is too quick to offer death as an appropriate outcome.
The lawsuit, filed against state officials and agencies (PDF), argues that California’s 7-year-old law that allows terminally ill people to choose to get lethal drugs to end their life — the End of Life Option Act — puts disabled people at greater risk of being coerced into seeking assisted suicide.
The lawsuit says people with disabilities often face a denial of the medical care they need and, as a result, may be quick to seek assisted suicide as an option.
Ingrid Tischer, who is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, says she experienced that.
Tischer, who lives with a form of muscular dystrophy, has been around doctors her entire life. In 2021, in the middle of the pandemic, Tischer was hospitalized for pneumonia. When she asked for therapy to regain her strength, the doctor said she didn’t qualify.
“He kind of looked at me and said, ‘Well, I mean, look at you, there’s nothing we can do for you. And you’ve known this is coming for a long time. So why are you surprised?'” Tischer says.
Tischer, who was 55 then, says she was devastated. She thought she was facing the end of her life. “For me, it was a very solid gut punch,” she says.
If a doctor had told her she should apply for California’s assisted suicide law, she says she might well have said yes.
No doctor ever suggested that to Tischer. The lawsuit doesn’t mention any cases of that kind of coercion.
Tischer, instead, got another doctor, who gave her a different diagnosis. She left the hospital and recovered.
Tischer and the other plaintiffs raise fears of a subtle kind of discrimination — what Michael Bien, the lawyer who filed the challenge, calls “steering.” Bien says people who have difficulty getting the care they need may feel compelled, instead, to see assisted suicide as their best option.
The End of Life Option Act requires people to make a clear choice to end their lives. But, Bien argues, the choice of people with disabilities gets clouded by whether they get the medical care and support that helps them live.
“Is it really a choice,” Bien asks, “when society makes it very difficult to access home health care support?”
For many people in California with disabilities, there are long waits — often months long — to get a direct support professional to provide the in-home support that allows them to live independently. California is known to have a generous program. But a report by the state auditor (PDF) in 2021 found that even when people get into the In-Home Supportive Services Program, some 40,000 a month don’t get all the care they require. For someone with quadriplegia, getting an attendant to help them get in and out of bed may determine whether they can go to school or work, and stay out of a nursing home.
Lonnie VanHook, another individual plaintiff in the lawsuit, has quadriplegia and needs round-the-clock assistance, including people who can move him in his bed or wheelchair to prevent him from getting painful bedsores. But when he couldn’t get enough hours of care, he became depressed and considered assisted suicide.
Jules Steimnitz, a rehabilitation doctor, calls this “attendant deficiency diagnosis, that you can’t get attendants.” Steimnitz, who first treated VanHook more than three decades ago, kept in touch and helped talk him through that desperation. “This is his main problem. This is what’s causing his depression. He doesn’t need suicide. He needs attendants.”
“Over the years, it has been a continuous uphill battle” to get that assistance, VanHook told NPR. “It’s a mental drain. It’s debilitating.”
The lawsuit says VanHook, as a Black man with little income, is at an increased risk because of racial disparities in health care.
The limits of health care systems became more clear early in the pandemic. When health care providers feared possible shortages of ventilators and other treatments, states issued guidelines — called “crisis standards of care” — that sometimes gave doctors and hospitals permission to put disabled and elderly people at the back of the line if care got scarce.
