On September 2, a federal district court decided that California could not, for the time being, compel medical personnel to aid in suicides against their moral convictions.
In the case of Christian Medical & Dental Associations v. Bonta, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a preliminary injunction preventing California officials from enforcing a clause “which requires a health care provider who is unable or unwilling to participate to ‘document the individual’s date of request and provider’s notice to the individual of their objection in the medical record[.]’”
The first of the two spoken requests that must be made in order for a patient to get assisted suicide in that state would be fulfilled by documenting the patient’s request.
According to Kevin Theriot, senior counsel for the religiously-based legal organisation Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), “the court also clarified that the law doesn’t require [medical professionals] to refer for assisted suicide, or to provide information about it, because that would violate their medical ethics and religious convictions.”
The End of Life Option Act, which made physician-assisted suicide lawful in California and took effect in 2016, is the subject of the case, which was brought by ADF lawyers on behalf of Christian medical professionals in February. After the act was passed, California passed legislation that required doctors to participate and also removed significant safeguards from the act.
The court determined that the medical professionals “are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech argument” and issued the preliminary injunction.
Theriot explained the court’s ruling on behalf of those who were opposing the California statute.
The fact that you are likely to triumph nearly always means that you will, he continued, “practically speaking, when a court does that.”
With regard to the preliminary injunction, he continued, “It indicates that we have prevailed while the matter is pending.” It’s crucial to understand that the law is suspended for Californian doctors so they can practise what they believe without worrying about being punished by the state while this case is pending.
He claimed that the matter involves both the right to free speech and the practise of religion.
“Our free speech claim was successful. The court ruled that you cannot force a doctor to talk in a manner that is at odds with their beliefs, the doctor stated. Although the court did not grant the injunction based on our free exercise argument, we remain optimistic and sure that the courts will find that this also violates our rights to free exercise and freedom of religion.
Theriot anticipated a potential hearing on turning the preliminary injunction into a final one next year, even if he is unsure of when the issue will be settled.
He argued that medical professionals shouldn’t have to worry about facing penalties from the government when they follow their convictions.
According to a press release, the preliminary injunction was obtained after ADF lawyers for a Christian physician and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations petitioned the court to prevent the application of California law while their litigation is ongoing.
The court determined, among other things, that the “documentation requirement imposed by the Act ‘plainly modifies the content’ of non-participating health care providers’ speech” while granted the preliminary injunction.
The court judgement states that non-participating medical professionals who oppose assisted suicide must enter a notation in a patient’s medical file “document[ing] the individual’s date of request and provider’s notice to the individual of their disagreement.” This documentation can then be used to fulfil one of the two oral requests necessary to get drugs for assisted suicide.
According to the court ruling, even non-participating providers who oppose assisted suicide will ultimately be forced to comply with the Act’s documentation requirement.
The office of California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, who is named as a defendant in the complaint, responded to a request for comment by telling CNA that it is currently examining the ruling.