Two days ago, the Fourth District, Division Two, Court of Appeal reversed a superior court judgment that invalidated the End of Life Option Act, a law legalizing what has been variously called aid-in-dying and assisted suicide. The lower court had ruled the Act was not within the scope of the proclamation calling the special session at which the Legislature enacted the law.
Each of the three justices wrote an opinion contrary to the superior court ruling. The majority held the plaintiffs in the case — People v. Superior Court (Ahn) — had not shown they have standing to challenge the law. The dissenting justice wanted to reject the plaintiffs’ challenge on the merits.
Today, a Los Angeles Times editorial urges the Supreme Court to grant review, on its own motion if necessary (see here, here, and here). Because the Court of Appeal majority didn’t reach the merits and said that the plaintiffs might yet be able to establish standing, the Times says “this case could drag on for years,” which is “an unacceptable delay.” The law is currently in force, but the editorial argues, “It’s heartless to string along terminally ill patients who may be comforted by the knowledge that they have the option to make their suffering stop if it becomes unbearable. Physicians too have an interest in settling the constitutional issue raised by this case as soon as possible. Otherwise, they may face a legal dilemma when dying patients ask for help negotiating their final days.”