Committee moves to remove sunset on California’s End of Life Option Act as supporters stress safety safeguards

Sen. Blake Speier told the Senate Judiciary Committee he would seek to remove the statutory sunset from the End of Life Option Act (SB 403), which currently would repeal on 01/01/2031 unless extended. Speier said the law — enacted in 2015 and in force since June 2016 — allows mentally capable, terminally ill adults who are California residents to request medication to end their lives and that nearly 4,287 people have used the option safely since enactment.

Speier reviewed procedural safeguards that providers must follow under the law: two oral requests at least 48 hours apart, a written request witnessed by two adults, confirmation of diagnosis and prognosis by two providers, assessments of decision‑making capacity and a requirement that patients be informed of alternatives such as palliative care. Speier and witnesses argued the annual data collected by the California Department of Public Health demonstrates the law “is working as intended,” with most users in hospice and the majority age 60 or older.

Dan Diaz, husband of Brittany Maynard, testified in support and described his wife’s experience seeking medical aid in dying in a state where it was legal. Jaspreet Chowdhury of Compassion & Choices and clinicians including Dr. Katherine Forrest and other health professionals spoke in support, emphasizing safeguards, reporting and the Department of Public Health’s annual reports.

Opponents included disability rights groups and faith‑based advocates. Dan Okenfuss of the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers expressed concerns about removing “a vital safeguard” and asked for a full public evaluation of the law’s impacts before removing the sunset. LULAC and other groups also raised questions about whether data collection is complete and whether disparities in access or coercion risks might be under‑reported. Committee members probed both sides: several members said the issue was deeply personal and difficult, noting that supporters and critics both raised valid public‑policy and ethical concerns. Senator Stern noted an increase in reported prescriptions in 2023 and asked whether shortened waiting period changes might affect use.

Speier and supporters said the increase in recent prescriptions reflected statutory changes and increased familiarity with the law, and argued the data to date do not indicate widespread abuses. Several legislators said they would want additional data on whether use disproportionately affects particular demographic groups and whether more public review was advisable before the floor vote. No final committee vote on SB 403 is recorded in the provided transcript.