EPC-USA Disability Rights Opposition New Hampshire to Assisted Suicide Bill HB1283.

Dear Senator

Meghan Schrader

EPC-USA's Fact Sheet is testimony regarding the social harms attached to assisted suicide legislation like HB1283. However, given that assisted suicide’s negative impact is going to fall primarily on the disabled community, the EPC felt that we should submit a more detailed analysis of how assisted suicide undermines disability rights, and whose advice on this matter ought to be heeded by members of the Assembly.

Members of the EPC board with training in the fields of disability studies and advocacy have noted that some assisted suicide advocates are trying to hijack disability rights for their own purposes. For instance, an able-bodied man named Christopher Riddle has done pro-assisted suicide advocacy in the Northeast while presenting himself as a “disability rights advocate.” Riddle is a colleague of Udo Schuklenk, one of the architects of Canada’s euthanasia program, and Riddle enthusiastically approves of that program.

Moreover, Riddle’s theories about disability rights have been reasonably criticized as lacking any empirical grounding in the experiences of disabled people. He has no experience or personal stake in the practical implications of his ideas.

Furthermore, Riddle’s scholarship dehumanizes disabled people who are harmed by assisted suicide; he frames anyone who might be harmed by assisted suicide as the equivalent of a car accident statistic. He asserts that harm that assisted suicide might cause for people with disabilities “ought not to be of special concern.” Hence, Riddle is willing to sacrifice people with disabilities for the right to die movement’s agenda; he is not the “disability rights advocate” he claims to be.

For a more accurate understanding of how the disabled community has approached the issue of assisted suicide, we encourage you to watch a video created by disability studies ethicist Harold Braswell about disability rights opposition to assisted suicide. Braswell has studied the right to die issue extensively.

There are other very important facts that legislators must take into account when considering how assisted suicide is impacting the disabled community:

The American Association of Suicidology made a 2017 statement saying that “MAiD” was not suicide. But in 2023 the AAS had to retract that statement because it was used in the 2019 Truchon decision that expanded assisted suicide to disabled Canadians, which was opposed by the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention.The consequences of the AAS’s statement are an example of how green lighting assisted suicide for the terminally ill easily results in violence against people with disabilities.

In 2021, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of People with Disabilities asserted that all assisted suicide laws violate its Convention On The Rights of People with Disabilities.

Peer-reviewed research establishes that people are more likely to view suicide as acceptable if the victim is disabled, and people with disabilities often lack access to comprehensive suicide prevention care. This bill exacerbates that problem by laying the scaffolding for “MAiD” to become a substitute for the suicides of persons with disabilities.

Well-known right to die leader Thaddeus Mason Pope has tweeted that it’s good for disabled people to die by suicide; the director of Compassion and Choices appeared on Dr. Phil with Pope in 2023. If you pass this bill, you empower and reward a contingent of people who want disabled people’s suicides to be a “medical procedure.”

We urge you to allow HB1283 to die this session because regardless of its content, it rewards a movement that is hostile to people with disabilities. Exacerbating the oppression that disabled people already face so that the proponents can plan their deaths is unwise and unjust.

Sincerely,

Meghan Schrader, Disability Rights EPC-USA
Josephine L.A. Glaser, MD.,FAAFP
Colleen E. Barry, Chairperson
Kenneth Stevens, MD
William Toffler, MD
Gordon Friesen
Alex Schadenberg
Epc_USA@yahoo.com

Endnotes

1. https://twitter.com/cariddlephd/status/1373071051631038470
2. http://www.lpbr.net/2014/08/disability-and-justice-capabilities.html?m=1
3. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687599.2014.984931
4. https://philpapers.org/rec/RIDAD
5. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vdpwdt26wwq42ak0eraee/Braswell_PAS-Statement_To-Send-1.mov?rlkey=05vve2sis2s4sy51hma27jx2u&dl=0
6. https://www.slu.edu/arts-and-sciences/bioethics/faculty/braswell-harold.php
7. https://suicidology.org/2023/03/08/aas-update-on-previous-statement/
8. https://twitter.com/TrudoLemmens/status/1666067817035190272
9. https://suicideprevention.ca/media/statement-on-recent-maid-developments/
10. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/01/disability-not-reason-sanction-medically-assisted-dying-un-experts
11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26402344/
12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXVrgtTNN2Y&t=2108s
13. https://twitter.com/ThaddeusPope/status/1669450726831976449

Letter to British Parliamentarians opposing euthanasia.

This letter was sent to elected representatives in the British Parliament and shared.

Ann Farmer

Dear ... 

As your constituent I am writing to draw your attention to the above debate, in the hope that you will be able to attend and speak against attempts to legalise assisted suicide/euthanasia, now going under the euphemism 'assisted dying'.

Given the appalling outcomes reported from those jurisdictions that have gone down this route, most notoriously Canada, where 'strict safeguards' have been swiftly dismantled to allow death for disability and also poverty, https://alexschadenberg.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-call-to-defeat-new-hampshire-assisted.html it is vital that we do not follow them down this slippery slope.

Significantly, advocates of 'assisted dying' neglect to mention that this issue has been thoroughly debated and decisively rejected by Parliament in the past few years, on the very valid ground that there is no safe way of killing.

I trust you will attend, or alternatively make the case for 'assisted living' for all, rather than the money-saving expedient of euthanomics.

With all best wishes,

Ann Farmer
Woodford Green
Essex

Scotland's assisted suicide bill allows 16-year-olds with Anorexia to be killed.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Professor David Jones

Georgia Edkins, the Scottish Political Editor for the Daily Mail reported on April 20, 2024 that 16 year-olds with Anorexia could be approved for assisted suicide under Scotland's assisted dying bill. Edkins reports:

Teenagers with anorexia could apply for state-backed ‘suicide’ under ‘extremely dubious’ laws proposed in Scotland, experts warned last night.

Newly published Holyrood legislation would allow NHS patients to request prescriptions for a life-ending cocktail of drugs that induce a coma, shut down the lungs and eventually stop the heart.

Edkins reporting on comments by ethicist David Jones writes:

David Jones, professor of bioethics at St Mary’s University in London and director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, said: ‘It is extremely, extremely dubious.

We’re talking about “assisted dying” as a euphemism, and it’s always assisted suicide.

‘Suicide is something that we should try to seek to prevent and provide alternatives to, whether it’s for an old person or a young person, whether they have progressive disease or disability.’

‘Terminal in the Scottish Bill is defined as someone having a progressive incurable disease from which you could die. It could cover anorexia.

Jones also warned that the assisted suicide bill that is sponsored by Liam McArthur would:

• Let people as young as 16 die before their lives had properly begun;
• Not require someone to be close to death to be eligible for ‘assisted dying’;
• Not make a psychiatric assessment mandatory ahead of the life-ending procedure.

Edkins reported Jones as stating:‘

It is called the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, so that proclaims itself as being restricted to people who are terminally ill, but it defines people that are terminally ill only as people who have a progressive incurable disease, which is at an advanced stage. It doesn’t mean that you’re dying.’

Jones referenced the fact that in Scotland, a person is deemed an adult at 16, whereas in Oregon the age is 18. Based on the definition of terminal illness in the bill, someone with Anorexia could be approved for assisted suicide at the age of 16. Jones states:

‘There have been cases of people with anorexia having assisted dying in Oregon.’

Edkins ends her article by stating:

Perhaps most troubling is Professor Jones’ suggestion that the embattled NHS in Scotland could resort to suggesting death as a viable replacement for treatment.

He said: ‘What you’re starting to see in Canada is that doctors will suggest to patients, “Have you thought of assisted dying”, including people who, for example, have had difficulty getting support for social services to live at home.

‘There’s nothing in the Scottish legislation that prevents that.’

Article: Scotland's Deceptive euthanasia bill redefines terminal illness to include people with disabilities (Link).

Do No Harm and say No to Assisted Suicide.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director
Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Amy Smith

While cleaning up my emails I came across this excellent commentary by Amy Smith, who is a physician-assistant in Minnesota titled: Pledge to 'do no harm' and say No to physician-assisted suicide. Smith's commentary was published in the Minnesota Reformer on April 13, 2024. Smith begins her article by explaining why she opposes assisted suicide.

I’ve spent the past 20 years of my career as a physician assistant saving lives in the emergency department. On a daily basis, I pledge to “do no harm” to my patients as I care for them and render lifesaving aid.

As a medical provider, the greatest harm I can imagine is being responsible for ending my patient’s life. That is why I am deeply troubled by ongoing conversations at the Minnesota Legislature to legalize physician-assisted suicide.

This proposed legislation goes against the fact that a health care providers’ obligation is to care for their patients — not to assist in killing them — no matter the circumstance.

Smith is also concerned with the inevitable future extensions to the legislation.

It is also evident that limits on assisted suicide erode over time. These laws often begin with eligibility limited to terminal illness and a six-month life expectancy; however, countries like Belgium, Netherlands and Canada have gradually expanded criteria to offer assisted suicide to people with depression, disability and chronic pain, as well as people with limited income. Patients often seek assisted suicide out of fear of becoming a burden. Legalizing it reinforces harmful misconceptions that people experiencing chronic illness are a burden and encourages people to end their lives prematurely. And euphemisms like “medical aid in dying” make it more palatable for people to accept this as okay, masking the fact that medical professionals are prescribing medication that results in suicide.

Smith continues by sharing personal experience with death and dying:

Like many Minnesotans, suicide is also a deeply personal subject for me. My dad ended his own life when I was 12 years old. Most people would say that my dad’s death at age 35 was a tragedy. They’d say we should try our best to prevent suicide. I agree.

I also lost my mom to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis when she was only 62. This proposed legislation tells us that it would not have been a tragedy for my mom, with the assistance of her medical provider, to end her own life prematurely. Instead, this legislation says it would have been the caring thing to do. I disagree.

Both situations are absolute tragedies. In both scenarios, a person should have access to supportive, person-centered care — not a legal path to suicide.

Smith concludes by repeating why she opposes assisted suicide.

Is physician-assisted suicide really how we want to care for patients in Minnesota? As a physician assistant, wife, mother — and as an orphan daughter — my answer is a resounding ‘No’.

Thank you Amy Smith for your personal and professional opposition to killing your patients.

Doctor comments on the Illinois assisted suicide proposal.

The following Letter to the Editor was published on April 20, 2024 by The News Gazette.

As a physician, I would like to share my perspective on physician-assisted suicide.

While I agree with common concerns like abuse, misdiagnosis, medication issues and lack of safeguards, I want to focus on another aspect, especially from an emergency physician’s standpoint.

With over three decades of practicing emergency medicine, I have encountered numerous patients at the end of their lives. In emergency medicine, our aim is to cure whenever possible, but above all, to provide care. Sometimes, this entails accompanying patients and their loved ones on their journey towards the inevitable end of life.

Reflecting on physician-assisted suicide, it is impossible to ignore that facilitating a patient’s death contradicts the fundamental principles of medical care, upheld from antiquity to modern medical science. It is disconcerting to see physicians suggesting or providing a direct pathway to end a patient’s life, thus neglecting their duty of care, even towards those with terminal conditions.

Physicians advocating for physician-assisted suicide lack coherence in their justifications, citing reasons such as “dying with dignity” or alleviating suffering by ending life.

Instead of delving into comprehensive approaches to pain management, addressing social support deficiencies, or exploring the psychological, spiritual and emotional aspects of patients’ suffering, they advocate for the ultimate shortcut — facilitating death as the solution.

Redirecting resources from initiatives for physician-assisted suicide toward research for better end-of-life care, enhancing mental-health resources and optimizing pain management would better serve patients and society.

We must reconsider this tragic deviation from our responsibility as healers and stewards of health care.

Dr. GREGORY TUDOR
Peoria

 

Senator Blakespear removed assisted suicide expansion bill.

The following article was published by Choice is an Illusion.

California Senate Chamber

Senator Catherine Blakespear has removed proposed Senate Bill 1196, seeking to expand assisted suicide and euthanasia in California, from consideration prior to its first hearing Blakespear said in a statement.

"At this point, there is a reluctance from many around me to take up this discussion, and the future is unclear,”

“The topic, however, remains of great interest to me and to those who have supported this bill thus far.”

Senator Susan Eggman, who authored the original act in 2016, commented that pushing forward now would would create a risk of pushback. She stated:

While I have compassion for those desiring further change, pushing for too much too soon puts CA [California] & the country at risk of losing the gains we have made for personal autonomy....

With just a few weeks left to pass bills through policy committees before the Legislature's summer recess, it's unlikely another lawmaker would propos[e] a similar measure this year.

Link to the original article.

Senate Bill 1196 shows us the direction of the American euthanasia lobby. The Bill was only withdrawn because, as Senator Eggman stated it was "pushing for too much too soon."

Article: Good news: California assisted suicide expansion bill is dead. (Link)

A call to defeat New Hampshire assisted suicide House Bill 1283 "An Act relative to end of life options"

Gordon Friesen

By Gordon Friesen
President: Euthanasia Prevention Coalition 

It is a widely shared principle that, as long as our actions cause no harm to others, we might all be allowed to do as we please.

And so it is that many principled people --and even many who are personally repulsed by the idea of assisted death-- feel a visceral duty to support the "right" of others to choose the manner of their own passing. Unfortunately, however, HB 1283 would not merely create a liberty of permission for this purpose. Indeed far from it.

At the heart of HB-1283[i] lies, first, the concept of "medical assistance in dying" (even though majority patient trust has traditionally been founded on the Hippocratic Physician's promise not to kill); and second, the associated legislative assertion that MAID is not suicide (even though it plainly involves people deliberately taking poison to end their lives). Together, these extraordinary definitions herald a radical conceptual transformation of assisted death --from forbidden medical homicide to legitimate medical treatment-- and therein lies the special significance of Bills like HB 1283.

For medical care is universally seen as a positive benefit and a human right. To legally define assisted death in this way is thus to necessarily create entitlements, obligations and mandates whose implementation is entirely foreign to any fundamental notion of free choice.[ii]

Moreover, if we look to our Northern neighbour, we can already see exactly how such a medically justified regime of assisted death is destined to unfold. For since the first appearance of the term "MAID" in Canadian legislation (Province of Quebec, 2014)[iii] legal statutes and regulations have been enacted which require the performance of euthanasia in all institutions; by all medical professionals (with limited conscience-based exceptions only); and the proactive mandatory discussion of MAID with all eligible patients. Indeed, Canadian hospitals, and care teams have normalized euthanasia, to such an extent, that the vast non-suicidal majority of eligible patients are now obliged to navigate a clinical environment which has become objectively indifferent (if not hostile) to their continued survival.[iv]

Very obviously, no coherent system of individual liberty might ever have produced such a result. Quite the contrary: the simplest and most direct explanation of Canadian euthanasia lies, not in personal choice at all, but in the utilitarian budgetary advantage --to the State-- of systematically purging expensive and dependent persons from the public role.

Most certainly, also, a principled defence of death-by-choice does not require liberty-minded citizens to espouse this extreme theory of death-as-care. Both Switzerland[v] and Germany[vi], for example, recognize a general right to suicide (including assisted suicide) but explicitly refuse to accord such actions any objective validation (medical or otherwise), precisely in order to avoid the disastrous effects of entitlements, mandates and obligations as described above.[vii]

In conclusion, therefore: Although I am personally opposed to any assisted death whatsoever, I also recognize that a sincere philosophy of "live-and-let-live" may indeed inspire principled support for death-by-choice. But not with just any Bill. And certainly not with this one.

In the end, we must decide whether New Hampshire’s medical industry will be structured to prioritize typical patient satisfaction, or that of a small suicidal minority. And above all: whether the radical new paradigm of utilitarian death-medicine now seen in Canada --and so clearly echoed in HB-1283-- will be allowed to high-jack the freedom agenda entirely.

With the greatest respect, I request the defeat of this legislation.

Gordon Friesen, President, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Endnotes:

[i] "An act relative to end of life options" New Hampshire HB1283, 2024 (Link to Bill).

[ii] Constitution of the World Health Organization (1946) as amended (2005) accessed April 17, 2024 (Article Link) accessed April 17, 2024

[iii] "Act Respecting End-of-Life Care" Province of Quebec, Canada, 2014, as revised 2024 (Link to Legislation) accessed April 17, 2024

[iv] Lessons from the Canadian Euthanasia Experiment, G. R. Friesen, April 4, 2023 (Link to article) accessed April 17, 2024

[v] Swiss criminal code art. 115 (Link to Swiss Criminal Code) accessed Nov 4, 2023

[vi] German High Court decision February 26, 2020 (Article Link) accessed Oct 28, 2023

[vii] Fundamental Considerations in the Creation of a Minimally Intrusive Liberty of Assisted Death (produced for the Irish Joint Committee on Assisted Dying), G.R. Friesen, November 12, 2023, (Article Link) accessed April 17, 2024.

Are you grieving after a loved one died by euthanasia? Join a retreat day on Saturday May 25 in Toronto.

Are you grieving the loss of a loved one through Medical Assistance in Dying (euthanasia)?

Compassionate Community Care and St John The Compassionate Mission are hosting a retreat day for hospitality, support, reflection and sharing for those who are hurting from losing a loved one (friend or family) through (MAiD) euthanasia.

Anyone who is grieving is welcome.

The event is: Saturday May 25, 2024 from 12 to 8 pm.

The location: 155 Broadview Ave., Toronto ON M4M 2E9

There is a suggested donation of $100. Meals are provided.

For more information and to register email: info@beingwith.org or outreach@stmarysrefuge.org

Project Anna and Simeon.

Why are Dutch doctors euthanising healthy young women?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Kevin Yuill

Kevin Yuill, who is an emeritus professor of history at the University of Sunderland and CEO of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (HAASE) was published in Spiked on April 18, 2024 is asking the question: Why are Dutch doctors euthanising healthy young women?

Yuill begins his article by telling the stories of Yolanda Fun and Zoraya ter Beek:

Jolanda Fun is scheduled to die next week on her 34th birthday. As such, she has been able to prepare the funeral invites in advance. ‘Born from love, let go in love’, reads the card. ‘After a hard-fought life, she chose the peace she so longed for.’

Fun, who lives in North Brabant in the Netherlands, explained why she wants to die in an interview with The Sunday Times last week. Though she is physically healthy, she feels constantly ‘sad, down, gloomy’. At age 22, she was diagnosed with a litany of mental-health problems and has since run the gamut of therapies. Consequently, she has never been able to hold down a job. When a counsellor told her two years ago that she could be euthanised, she decided this was the only option left for her. ‘I want to step out of life’, she explains. 

Fun has no doubt had a difficult life. She suffers from an eating disorder, recurrent depression, autism and mild learning difficulties. But to suggest suicide as a cure to these problems is as good as giving up on her.

Shockingly, Fun’s case is not all that unique in the Netherlands. Earlier this month, it was reported that another young, physically healthy Dutch woman is seeking euthanasia on mental-health grounds. The 28-year-old Zoraya ter Beek is scheduled to die in May on account of her depression and autism.

Yuill then explains how euthanasia for psychiatric reasons has expanded.

Most cases of assisted suicide or euthanasia (ASE) in the Netherlands – the first country to legalise the practice in 2002 – involve people with terminal illnesses. But ASE for psychiatric reasons is on the rise. In 2010, only two people sought euthanasia on the grounds of mental health. That increased to 68 in 2019 and to 138 last year.

Psychiatric euthanasia remains divisive in the Netherlands. Many Dutch people who were initially in favour of ASE are reconsidering their positions because of it. Boudewijn Chabot is one such critic, a psychiatrist who actually received a suspended sentence for carrying out the first reported case of euthanasia for psychiatric reasons in the 1990s. Now Chabot worries that the legalisation of ASE has gone too far. ‘I am not against euthanasia in psychiatry or severe dementia’, he writes. ‘[But] I am extremely concerned that doctors are trying to solve social misery due to lack of treatment and care, by opening the gate to the end.’

Yuill continues:

There is no doubt that the Netherlands’ laws on euthanasia have harmed the most vulnerable. In 2023, a study found 39 cases of ASE in the Netherlands involved people with either learning disabilities or autism, or both. Of these, nearly half were under 50. Although many of these patients also suffered from physical co-morbidities that led to them seeking out ASE, 21 per cent of them did so primarily for psychiatric reasons. They cited characteristics associated with their conditions, such as anxiety, loneliness, difficulty in making friends and connections, and not feeling they had a place in society.

A growing number of people with dementia are also seeking euthanasia in the Netherlands. In fact, 42 per cent of Dutch GPs reported requests for euthanasia from people with dementia. Of those, patients cited feeling like an emotional burden as the most frequent reason. Disturbingly, just under 43 per cent of these patients said they felt pressured by relatives.

Yuill then warns countries that are debating euthanasia to consider the grim reality:

In Scotland, where the government is currently considering a bill to allow assisted suicide, support for legalisation has consistently dropped since 2019. Perhaps this has something to do with the neverending stream of horrific stories emerging from countries where ASE is legal. In Canada, people seek out euthanasia to solve poverty, homelessness and lack of medical care. In the Netherlands, therapists seem to have given up on treating the mentally unwell, recommending euthanasia instead. 

Yuill ends his article by explaining 

The brutality of encouraging those like Jolanda Fun to die destroys the argument that ASE is about compassionately relieving end-of-life suffering. Fun herself is unsure whether or not things could have been different for her, had she received the right treatment. ‘They say you are born like this’, she says, ‘but I really think the services should have listened a bit better’.

This is where treating death as a form of medicine has led to. Medical professionals should be telling suicidal people that life can get better, not encouraging them to give up. Allowing euthanasia on psychiatric grounds tells those suffering with a mental illness that their lives are not worth living. This is not compassionate or dignified. It is evil. 

More articles on this topic:

• Autistic 28-year-old Dutch woman is scheduled to die by euthanasia (Link).
• Netherlands 2023 euthanasia report - A 20% increase in euthanasia for mental illness (Link).

Good news: California assisted suicide expansion bill is dead.

Alex Schadenberg

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have great news. The California assisted suicide expansion bill (SB 1196) has been pulled. 

This is great news, but let's be clear, the language of SB 1196 is the goal of the assisted suicide lobby but the bill was determined to have gone too far too fast.

Based on the summary of SB 1196 by Senator Blakespear I stated that the bill would have:

1. Allowed euthanasia by IV (intravenous), as in Canada. Currently, California permits assisted suicide (lethal poison that a person takes orally at the time and place of their own choosing, with or without witnesses). This bill allowed for death by IV. This constitutes euthanasia/homicide.
2. Changed the criteria from terminally ill (6 month prognosis) to the Canadian model: “a grievous and irremediable medical condition.” Thus, there would be no time limit  and no terminal illness requirement.
3. Allowed people with early to mid-stage dementia to consent to assisted suicide or euthanasia, even though they have a condition that impairs their capacity to consent.
4. Removed the California residency requirement. California would join Oregon and Vermont, dropping their residency requirements and allowing for suicide tourism.
5. Removed the 2031 sunset clause in the California assisted suicide law.

I published an article on March 18, 2024, stating that the California bill would legalize medical killing. After the language of SB 1196 was released I further explained how SB 1196 would have expanded medical killing in California.

SB 1196 would have changed the law from requiring ingesting of the lethal poison to utilizing the lethal poison. Utilize was not defined in the bill but it could be defined as: "to make practical and effective use of."

SB 1196 would have changed the law from requiring a terminal disease to a grievous and irremediable medical condition.

Terminal disease was based on a 6 month prognosis whereas grievous and irremediable medical condition had a long definition that essentially mean't that the person has a serious chronic condition that will continue to decline.

The bill stated:  

For purposes of this part, a “grievous and irremediable medical condition” includes a diagnosis of early to mid-stage dementia while the individual still has the capacity to make medical decisions. 

IV catheter

How would early to mid-state dementia have been defined in practise?

SB 1196 permitted non-doctors to participate in the law. SB 1196 added the following: nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and registered nurses.

SB 1196 removed the residency requirement in the California law by striking out the words - is a resident of California.

SB 1196 allowed the use of an IV (intravenous) catheter to "utilize" the poison. SB 1196 stated:  

death through ingestion, or through an intravenous pathway after a health care provider places an intravenous catheter if one was not already placed, to bring about the qualified individual’s own death. 

This statement did not limit the use of the IV catheter to assisted suicide and may have allowed for euthanasia/homicide.

Later SB 1196, stated:  

For purposes of this section, “assisting the qualified individual by preparing the aid-in-dying drug” includes a health care provider placing an intravenous catheter, so long as the health care provider does not assist the qualified individual in introducing the aid-in-dying drug into the qualified individual’s vein.

This statement inferred that the person must somehow utilize the IV catheter. The IV could be placed but the health care provider could not "assist". This was intentionally confusing. There may also have been circumstances, such as ALS, where the person has difficulty "utilizing" the IV catheter without assistance.

On June 22, 2022, a California federal judge rejected a case designed to permit euthanasia within California's assisted suicide act. Shavelson, a doctor that solely focuses on assisting suicide and Sandra Morris, who had ALS, argued that the state's assisted suicide law discriminated against people who had difficulty self-ingesting the lethal drugs and to remedy the situation the state needed to permit euthanasia in those cases.

In that case, Shavelson argued that allowing the administration of lethal drugs by IV catheter when a person has difficulty self-administering the lethal drugs was necessary. Justice Chhabria rejected the argument and stated:

Chhabria ruled the case could not proceed on the theory that it violates the ADA because the accommodation they seek would cross the boundary created by the End of Life Option Act, “from the ability to end your own life to the ability to have someone else end it for you.”

Chhabria further ruled:

“Such an accommodation would ‘compromise' the essential nature of the act, and would therefore fundamentally alter the program.’”

The judge said the law’s self-administration requirement is the “final safeguard” to ensure the act remains voluntary.

“A person seeking to end their life pursuant to the act can opt out at any point — after requesting or receiving the prescription, after the drugs are in their hand, after the feeding tube has been installed, after saying goodbye,” he wrote. “The accommodation that the plaintiffs seek would significantly undermine these protections by opening a window during which there would be no way of knowing whether the patient had changed their mind.”

If SB 1196 would have changed the California law by removing self-administer, removing the terminal illness requirement and allowing the utilization of an IV catheter, these changes would make it impossible to distinguish between an act of assisted suicide and an act of euthanasia/homicide. 

Assisted suicide is receiving lethal poison and self-administer it for the purpose of causing death.

Euthanasia is when another person, usually a medical professional, administers the lethal poison for the purpose of causing death. Euthanasia is a form of homicide/murder.

Since SB 1196 did not require a "third/independent party" to witness the act, therefore SB 1196 would have enable euthanasia under the guise of assisted suicide and achieve for the euthanasia lobby what was denied to them by Justice Chhabria in 2022.

SB 1196 was a "Trojan horse" euthanasia bill.

SB 1196 is the end goal of the assisted suicide lobby.