.jpg)
Death With Dignity Podcast
Death With Dignity Podcast
Episode 24 with Jess Pezley
Send us a Text - Leave an email in your message if you want to hear back from us!
Jess Pezley, senior staff attorney at Compassion and Choices, explores the current legal landscape surrounding medical aid in dying legislation in California and across the United States, addressing challenges, misconceptions, and its connection to broader healthcare rights.
• Medical aid in dying laws face ongoing legal challenges from religious organizations
• A key challenge through United Spinal vs California claims the law discriminates against those with disabilities
• California's MAID model represents the ideal balance with robust safeguards against the more expansive Canadian approach
• The Supreme Court's Dobbs decision creates potential threats to healthcare autonomy broadly
• Approximately 37% of Californians who receive MAID prescriptions never use them, demonstrating the value of the option itself
• Most people accessing MAID are simultaneously receiving hospice care (94%)
• Legal challenges to abortion access and gender-affirming care create precedents that could impact end-of-life options
• Having end-of-life conversations and creating advance directives remains critically important for everyone
• The tight-knit community formed around Andrew's advocacy continues his legacy of compassion and determination
Hello friends, we're back with another fun episode of the Death with Dignity podcast. We've been wanting to give our audience an update to where things stand with medical aid and dying in California and in the US. I'm sure you've all seen some challenges to the law as well. That we'll get into. Today's guest is perfect to help us navigate that space. Jess Peasley is a senior staff attorney at Compassion and Choices. Not only does she work on this stuff day in and day out, but she actually worked closely with Andrew on advocacy efforts as well, and they were real tight. We had a really fun time speaking with Jess. Her expertise and experience made her the perfect guest for the subject and she'll help us understand where MAID laws currently stand and gives us insight into what the future holds. Let's get into it that's cool.
Speaker 2:It was actually me, andrew, and uh tom, so I don't know if you knew this, but hasban andrew and I were on that same video game team that's and uh tom was the fourth person and tom andrew and I played on the same line.
Speaker 1:Yeah, they have good chemistry and you know I got to join in on that and see how it was. But anyways, we can kind of get started. I'm a little rusty at this, so whoever's listening out there like, excuse me a little bit, Give me a little slack. That's a phrase I was looking for. Jess, we're really happy to just have you here. I've been just looking forward to talking to you and I feel like you're the perfect person to just kind of get us back on what's happening with MADE and what's happening nationally and even locally as far as California goes. But before we get into all that, I kind of want to ask about you how did you get into this career path? What's your background? And, yeah, I'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 3:Yeah Well, I went to law school. I was like God, 20, 22, really young, really didn't know what I wanted to do. I just knew I wanted to be a lawyer, but didn't really know what that meant at all. But I wanted to work on constitutional rights. That was kind of my thing. And so I really wanted to find a career where I could work to expand individual constitutional rights. And I learned about Compassion and Choices from an old boss of mine. When I was a first year law student out in Oregon, I worked for the ACLU of Oregon and my boss was Kevin Diaz, whose name you might recognize because he is now my current boss at Compassion.
Speaker 1:Choices. Oh, he's the current CEO of CNC.
Speaker 3:Yeah, so he and I just stayed in touch over the years and when he made the transition to Compassion Choices, I had no idea that this movement existed or this field existed, but learned about it from him and I realized it kind of touched on everything I really cared about and provided me an opportunity to do the exact kind of work I wanted to do. And so that is how I came to Compassion and Choice. I mean, there's a lot more years in between and like other jobs that I did, but yeah, that's how I ended up here eventually.
Speaker 1:And how long have you been at Compassion and Choice now?
Speaker 3:Five and a half years.
Speaker 1:And what's your actual title, just for everybody.
Speaker 3:I'm a senior staff attorney for the legal and policy department at Compassion and Choices.
Speaker 1:Cool and just for anybody who might not know what does Compassion and Choices exactly do?
Speaker 3:We are the oldest and most active nonprofit fighting for end of life rights. We work to ensure that individuals can access the exact healthcare options that they want at the end of life and receive the treatment that they want, make sure that they don't receive any treatment that they don't want and just make sure that their wishes are being honored. And so we work to have the widest range of end of life options available in every jurisdiction so folks aren't limited.
Speaker 1:Is there like a defining moment or something that like took you down this career path? I feel like it takes a lot of compassion and like empathy which, you know, a lot of people just don't have the experiences in life to like understand what someone who's dying like goes through. Yeah, so was there something that led you to this? You're like this is what I want to do.
Speaker 3:I think, like a lot of people, my first exposure to the movement was through Brittany Maynard's story out of California. She was in her 20s when she was diagnosed with terminal cancer, had to move from California to Oregon, completely uproot her life to access Oregon's medical aid in dying statute, and her story became, you know, captured, I think, the attention of the nation and I was part. I was part of that.
Speaker 1:So oh you were, so you were part of that. Okay, cool.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I wasn't really familiar. I, you know, we talked to folks who have a lot of personal connection to the work, where they were exposed to it from a young age. They had family members with long, prolonged deaths. I've been really lucky that that hasn't been my experience. I, you know, my little sister had cancer when we were really young. She actually had the same kind of cancer that Andrew had when he was a kid a Wilms tumor.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 3:Which is like a really obscure cancer I think. I don't know, I'm not a doctor but I don't. You don't run into a lot of people that have Wilms tumor, but she had a stage four Wilms tumor and she's fine now so but there was like a lot of exposure to hospital settings and medical settings and kind of an understanding of death and dying in a young age. But, um, I am luckily not one of those people who have had the a super personal connection in my life, seeing somebody die a horrible death.
Speaker 1:Yeah, even being exposed to, like the healthcare, um, healthcare space like that, um, that's, that's, definitely it's. It stays with you, you know, um, especially when someone you love is, uh, is going through it, like all that. One thing I want to touch on was your connection with Andrew, the whole reason. So Andrew used to joke with me, before I even knew who you were, that he had a lawyer named Jess and he loved being able to say you know my lawyer, jess. Do you want to like, touch like upon your like a relationship with him and how you guys got connected and the work that you guys did together?
Speaker 3:Yeah, andrew, andrew was the best. I wish all my clients could be just like Andrew, because working with him was so great. We became connected because there was a challenge to California's medical aid and dying law back in I don't know the year, let me look it up, sorry.
Speaker 2:It's okay.
Speaker 1:All of the years are just like melding together in my brain um, milling together my brain, I think it was by, like, the doctors who were like, oh, we don't have to tell people about, uh, we don't have to yeah tell our patients about medical aid and dying so it was um.
Speaker 3:Coincidentally, it was the christian medical and dental associations, which is the same um group that just uh, challenged um one of the um abortion pills. That went all the way up to the Supreme Court. So they're really active in challenging laws that they disagree with, especially in the healthcare sphere. But yeah, so it was CMDA v Bonta and this was a case that was out of like around 2022 in California, and they were challenging the recently amended End-of-Life Option Act in California, saying that it compelled their speech. These doctors who did not want to prescribe medical aid in dying. But they were going further than that Not only did they not want to prescribe, they didn't want to have to transfer medical records of a patient who was requesting, they didn't want to have to document their requests. They really wanted nothing to do with anything.
Speaker 1:Yeah, they didn't want to like close their ears and just think like la, la, la, and they just wanted to yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 3:These like baseline medical obligations they wanted to abandon because they disagreed with the individual choice that their patient was wanting for themselves. So that's how I got to know Andrew. Compassion and Choices was representing folks who were intervening in that matter. So the case was brought by this association of religious doctors and dentists and they were suing the state, and so we intervened, or attempted to intervene, in that case so that we wanted to make sure that patients' voices were heard, and then also physicians who were prescribing and working with terminally ill patients. Their voices were being heard as well. So that's how I came to know Andrew, and the first time I called him I could just tell that he was very unsure of me.
Speaker 1:I think like we all know skeptical Andrew.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I don't know if I was just too buttoned up, or if he just was like I don't know if I was just too buttoned up or like if he just was like why, why am I talking to this lawyer, like you know. But things clicked pretty quickly, like we were just having this conversation and I think we both kind of dropped the facades that we probably entered the call with and it just we hit it off and from there it was like so easy to talk to him, everything case related. You know, I'd call him about something related to the case and then we would just talk for like an hour about everything, and it was just, it was great. He was my client, you know, first and foremost, but it really did kind of feel like he became a friend as well, which is, you know, that doesn't always happen.
Speaker 1:Yeah, for sure, andrew had that ability uh to you know, uh always like kind of treat people as friends first and uh, he really like uh carried the friendship moniker well. Um, yeah, like I said, he he said nothing, nothing but nice things about you and it was cool to meet you through him and I know that it gave him purpose to be able to like help other people and be part of the cause. Um, the one thing I want to touch on that you mentioned is there's an abortion pill case as well. I know it's not really uh connected with made, but there's uh. I do think this is all kind of like connected. So so are you saying that there's an abortion pill that the Christian Medical Association is trying to get stopped from, so people can't even take a pill?
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, this was a case that was filed in Texas very strategically with a very conservative judge in Texas, and it went all the way up to the United States Supreme Court and they just ruled on it last term. It was, I think, the Alliance for Hippocratic Oath, which is a group that was created really just to challenge this abortion pill which, I'm going to say it wrong. It's like Mipha Priestone. I always say Mipha because it's easier. I think it's Mipha Priestone, mipha Priestone, mipha Priestone, I don't know Mifa, because it's easier. I think it's Mifapristone, mifapristone, mifapristone. Someone's going to hear this and be cringing because I'm probably butchering.
Speaker 1:Yeah, make those names hard on purpose.
Speaker 3:They do, they do?
Speaker 1:They're really hard to say Big medicine.
Speaker 3:Yeah. So they challenged this pill and I think we're arguing that it wasn't authorized the way it should have been authorized and all of such stuff.
Speaker 3:It went all the way up to the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court threw the case out on standing, saying that these folks really weren't injured by the existence of these drugs. They weren't prescribing them. They weren't being asked by anyone to prescribe them, there wasn't any risk of it. You know because doctors do have this right that if they disagree you know, on ethical or religious grounds, that they don't have to prescribe or provide treatment. The same is true for medical aid in dying. So they're really similar cases. You know it's the same group being funded by the same large legal organizations. I think it's Alliance Defending Freedom that's behind both. It's all connected.
Speaker 1:I want to touch on the abortion thing for a second, because one thing that people don't realize and I learned from you and like other people is that it's not just like it's not just abortion, that's kind of like out there. It's also like some people have miscarriages and there's certain pills that now that are hard to access for people who have miscarriages, so people who are trying to have kids, not even trying to have like abortions and a lot of people's lives are like affected that way too, which is, again, it makes no sense to me whatsoever but there's like certain pills that would be better for them and they just don't have access to them and that kind of is really unfortunate.
Speaker 3:These abortion pills are necessary for, for health care, whether a person is ending their pregnancy because they want to end it or because they desperately want a kid and this pregnancy is not going to work out for them. Yeah, you know, with a lot of miscarriages not all of the fetal tissue is removed from the body just like naturally, and so you have to take medications to ensure that it's all out and make sure that you don't have an infection or something else. And so you see, in states where that have these really draconian abortion prohibitions, where pregnant people are not being able to access the care they need. And there is another I think it's an out of Texas A woman was pregnant, was having a miscarriage, wasn't able to, or she was having some sort of pregnancy complications.
Speaker 3:It wasn't a viable pregnancy. I don't know if she was actively miscarrying or not, but she wasn't able to access abortion services and because of that she might be infertile now. And you know, again was a person who desperately wanted to have a child. It just that pregnancy was not going to produce a kid.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I feel like a lot of people just don't understand this stuff, even when it comes to medical aid in dying. Like you know, I've done a lot of research on this topic. I'm like thinking about it a lot. Me and Andrew used to talk about the opposite side, which is a sit there and be like all right, what could they be thinking? It all kind of came down to the basics. It's just religious people who are very politically active and I just feel like the arguments get so bogged down and so confusing when it's pretty simple at the end of the day for a lot of these things.
Speaker 1:And I was like when I was preparing for this podcast I was like I don't want to get too political. Then I was like when I was preparing for this podcast I was like I don't want to get too political. Then I was like this whole thing is political. You can't really avoid politics when you talk about these topics. But speaking of like about some more cases, I really want to get, I want to use this podcast as an opportunity for people to kind of catch up on what's happening throughout California and kind of like the rest of the US. So I wanted to ask you about I think it's United Spinal versus the state of California, where I think people who are disabled are saying that this violates the Americans with, or made violates the Americans with, disabilities Act. Do you want to talk about that case a little bit and where you guys are at with it?
Speaker 3:Yeah, so United Spinal is the case that pretty much immediately followed the conclusion of CMDA v Bonta. So that case that Andrew was a part of, unfortunately he never we never got the opportunity to intervene. The state and the plaintiffs in that case settled the case and the case was dismissed. And I can't remember the exact dates of that dismissal, I think it was in May. But Andrew passed away before the resolution of that case.
Speaker 1:So when they settled the case, what does that mean? They both just walk away.
Speaker 3:So the state and the plaintiffs worked out an agreement amongst themselves to the state drop some of the requirements and agreed to pay plaintiffs a certain amount of money and in turn the plaintiffs agreed to drop the lawsuit. So we were not a part because we hadn't been able to intervene yet we weren't parties to the case and so we were not part of those conversations at all and we, you know, would have liked to have been, but we didn't get that opportunity. So as soon as that case was settled we saw, not long after United Spinal come. It was filed with the same judge in, I think it's, eastern District of California individuals with disabilities and then some disability rights organizations that believe the law violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and then California's kind of similar law. So that has been in the court system for a while.
Speaker 3:The case was dismissed at the trial court level and they appealed, plaintiffs appealed and it's at the Ninth Circuit now. So it's kind of confusing too because there's multiple appeals at the Ninth Circuit. So we have also tried to intervene in that case. The judge did not rule. The trial court judge did not rule in our motion to intervene and he dismissed the case. And when he dismissed the case he was like, and now the motion to intervene is moot and so he then dismissed our motion to intervene after the case had already concluded at that trial court level. So at the Ninth Circuit there's plaintiff's appeal, so that's the group of individuals with disabilities and the disability rights organizations, their appeal, and then separately we have appealed the denial of our motion to intervene. So there's these two kind of appeals going on.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I was reading about the case and I was like I'm just going to ask her. I'm getting confused here.
Speaker 3:It's so confusing, it gets so confusing. So at the plaintiff's appeal of their dismissal we tried to intervene in that as well, just to make it even more confusing. And the court did not let us. They denied our motion to intervene in plaintiff's appeal while our other kind of pending appeal is still going on. But so we wrote, we submitted an amicus brief and in that amicus brief we talked about all of the reasons we don't think medical aid in dying discriminates against people with disabilities. You know, at the end of life, when a person is terminally ill and eligible to access medical aid in dying, they pretty much necessarily have a disability under the definition of the ADA.
Speaker 1:So they are disabled people then right, I think that's what was confusing me, because I think of a person in like a wheelchair who you know might have some. You know they just can't do a lot of like normal, like functions. But anyone with cancer in their last six months to live is also a disabled person, correct?
Speaker 3:Yeah, under the ADA's definition. I should look up the exact language one second because I don't want to say the wrong thing.
Speaker 1:Yeah, with the legal stuff we got to be careful.
Speaker 3:Yeah, you got to be careful. You got to be careful.
Speaker 1:I'm just going to use the word alleged with everything I've heard, that that keeps lawyers away from you.
Speaker 3:There you go. Yeah, the ADA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that significantly limits one or more major life activities.
Speaker 3:So when you think of somebody who is eligible for medical aid in dying, they are going to be impaired in their ability to perform major life activities, just because, just because, unfortunately, that's the nature of terminal illnesses. Um, and so Compassion and Choices is an organization that serves people with disabilities. Um, most of our clients, you know, have, um, disabilities, and I think we we do as a society. When we think of disability, we think of, like, a long-term disability that a person has had for most of their life, and disabilities can just affect you at a certain part of life where you might not have had a disability prior to an illness and then, because of the illness, you do. So it's, you know. Yeah, I think we need to shift our understanding of what it means to have a disability. And so, you know, I agree, I agree with plaintiffs on that point.
Speaker 3:But the individuals who are accessing medical aid and dying have a disability. What I disagree with is that that medical aid in dying discriminates, that the law discriminates against them. There are so many safeguards written into the law specifically to ensure that an individual's autonomy is being honored by making sure that it's a voluntary choice for them, that there are other supportive services offered. You know, the physicians have to talk about other end of life options and it's something like 94% of people who access medical aid and dying are also on hospice. Some like a really high number of people.
Speaker 1:When you say access, you mean like actually take it.
Speaker 2:Yes, yeah, I believe that, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1:I think Andrew was on hospice as well when he took it he was yeah.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, like he was on hospice, yeah, which is which is actually just wild. Because, uh, yeah, that that really makes you think about things like differently, because it just shows that anyone with a disease, even in a lot of pain, there's this they are trying to live as long as they can. They are trying to live as long as they can. They literally make it to hospice 94%. Yeah, that's actually a really fascinating thing. It just shows like I think it just proves that point Like they're not trying to die, the disease is killing them, you know.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I don't think that's like more evident than in Andrew who just, you know, he did not, he didn't want to die, he wanted he.
Speaker 3:I mean desperately wanted to live, and even with his having a terminal illness that was brutal, he still lived so hard, you know, until the very very end. And so I think that's also a misunderstanding that a lot of people have with medical aid and dying, that somebody is going to get their prescription and then, you know, the very next day take it. And that might be true for some people who aren't able to access the medication until the very end, but for the majority of people they hold onto it provides, you know, this peace of mind that they know that if things get too bad they'll have this option, but they don't take it until the very very end, when they're just in their final days of life.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I thought about that with Andrew a lot, because obviously I saw his condition just get worse and worse and I was like, when will he decide to do it? I mean, I would listen to him, but it's not like something I would give like like advice on. I mean, uh, like, who can do that? And one thing I'll say is one thing that that the thing I was surprised about is he waited basically till the end. I mean, like that's the only way I can put it to people. I mean, he, his condition just got so bad and uh, at that point, yeah, I don't know You're, you're, you're on hospice and yeah, it seems like people have a will to live and, um, medical aid and dying is one of those things where, again, we have.
Speaker 1:Obviously you're a lawyer, you have to speak about it in like a certain way, you know, with the other side, but I have not found a convincing argument or anything like. Um, you know, especially for, like, for, like people with cancer. I mean, I have like a, a religious background too, so I'm like, oh, maybe you know god wouldn't like it or something like that, but even then it makes no sense because you're gonna uh, because, like hospice is doing the same thing. You just get to choose. And the last thing I'll say about Andrew is I know that the peace of mind it gave him and I feel like this peace of mind word is like so or phrase is so important, it's like invaluable. I mean that can really change your mind. Just a little different perspective on what you're going through can really just change your life and or the life that you have left.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I think cancer takes so much from a person and just dictates so much of their life what they can do, what they can't do. And I think just having this, this prescription on hand that you know that you can take if things get too bad, it allows you to just take a little bit back from cancer, just a little bit of your autonomy back to be to be able to make that decision and you know cancer doesn't get to decide right.
Speaker 3:Um um, and a lot of people who there's a lot of people every year. You can look in every state that has passed medical aid in dying legislation. They also have annual reports where doctors have to report on. You know who has. How many people have requested the medication, who ultimately took it. You know, there's. These numbers exist in every state where there's legislation and there's a sizable number of people every year who get the prescription and never take it Because for some people it's just at the end. That's not what they want. They don't, they didn't, they'd suddenly, you know, make a different decision, um, and that's great. It's great that if this is something that they had on hand that made them feel better, that allowed them to focus more on living rather than fear of dying, um, and if they didn't ultimately need to ingest it, you know that's that's great, that it's great that they were able to make that decision for themselves.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think I looked up the statistics and 37% of people in California that have the medication don't take it. I think most of the people that do end up taking it are also over the age of 80 or something.
Speaker 1:But I don't want to get that set wrong um, so yeah, it's uh I think I feel like there needs to be some kind of study done on 37 percent of people not taking it. But I have to say and I'll go more like into this of later on it seems like that the stats vary depending on state and like country uh, canada stats are way crazier than california's state and like country uh canada stats are way crazier than california's. Um, right in california, it's literally the most like ideal model for countries and states to like follow um. But one thing just to um, just to talk about this case is this case uh like um spinal versus uh the state of california? Is this like threatening made in californ? How concerned should we be?
Speaker 1:Um, I think it's a lot of BS honestly, like I read it. Uh, I also want to give a shout out to uh Susie Flack, who's part of the amicus brief, and me and Strev. Both uh like read those stories and honestly, those stories really, really like uh capture you and uh, I mean obviously we knew Andrew, but there's all these other stories of like people whose names I don't have on hand and their families and they're just so like touching honestly. And anyways, is Maid in threat or is Maid? Yeah, should we be worried about Maid in California?
Speaker 3:I, you know, I think with every legal challenge it's a threat, there is reason to be concerned. I don't how concerned, you know. How big this threat is is kind of remains to be told. We were really thankful that the trial court dismissed the case and did not think that the plaintiffs had a viable claim. But the reality is that we don't have a very friendly Supreme Court right now to our issue area and we would be worried that if it does go up to the Supreme Court and I think that's true of any challenge to medical aid in dying coming from any state this case I think that's true of, you know, any challenge to medical aid in dying coming from any state. You know this case.
Speaker 3:I think this case is unique in that I, while I do not ultimately agree with plaintiffs, I think it's important to understand where they're coming from. They have, you know, a very different lived experience than me. I don't have a disability and I haven't had that experience of being an individual with a disability in the medical system. I think it's true that our medical system does not treat people with disabilities as they should. Obviously, there's a lot of flaws in the American healthcare system, as they should.
Speaker 3:Obviously, there's a lot of flaws in the American healthcare system. I think we probably can all agree with that Needs work, needs, work, and so I think it's really important for us as a movement to understand these voices, because they're part of the community that we serve, that they're, you know, in part of the disability community. These individuals um don't obviously want um medical aid in dying, and that's kind of the whole point. And for us we say well, you don't have to have it. Um, there are um other end of life options. You know.
Speaker 3:They argue that they're not accessible enough, and I think that's probably true too. We need to do a better job at making sure that individuals at the end of life um are having their needs met and getting the exact care that they want. If they want hospice care, if they want, you know, a live in aid, um, those options need to be available and they need to be accessible, like by being affordable, you know, and um. So I think that all of these are good points. We don't disagree there, um, we just ultimately disagree with whether or not um the the statute itself is um discriminating against people with disabilities.
Speaker 1:yeah, um, and it's cool that, like you guys are showing such compassion to the other side. I know I said it's bs. I think obviously, like the like, the claim is like bs, but uh mean anyone that's disabled. You're right, they have their own lived experience and they have their own challenges and I don't want to diminish that either.
Speaker 3:I think when this case came about, I thought a lot about a conversation that I had with Andrew. Obviously, we all know Andrew was a special education teacher and he worked with kids with disabilities, and I remember we had this conversation once. He called me out of the blue. I was at a coffee shop. I just remember being at the coffee shop and taking this call from him and he was like I've been thinking about this a lot and he talked about how, in his work, one of the most important things to guaranteeing success later for the kids that he taught was making sure that they had autonomy and that they had a choice and they were able to make choices for themselves and have that kind of independence. Um, and so he strove every day, you know, to um, honor their autonomy and um, and then he talked about how for him it was just so hard that somebody was trying to limit his autonomy.
Speaker 3:Now, um, and that just it really struck me, you know, um, that's something that he dedicated his life to, and to me it comes down to medical aid in dying is an extension of one's autonomy. It allows a person to make that choice if that choice is right for them. It also allows them to not make that choice because it is fully voluntary and an individual can decide that they don't want medical aid in dying at any point in the process. So I think that plaintiffs and I just have disagree on what autonomy means here and whether medical aid in dying limits or honors a person's autonomy. I think that allowing someone to make that choice at the end of life honors their autonomy.
Speaker 1:So I wanted to touch on something that you briefly touched on. I want to expand on it. So how does the reversal of Roe v Wade affect medical aid in dying and end-of-life options act federally just?
Speaker 3:in general.
Speaker 1:And I guess it's a multi-step question because I know Neil Gorsuch being on the Supreme Court. He's written like a lot about this too.
Speaker 3:So anyway, if you want to expand on that, yeah, so the decision that overturned Roe v Wade, the Dobbs decision they actually relied on language that came out of a medical aid in dying case. So back in the 90s there was a case that went up to the Supreme Court that was trying to establish medical aid in dying as a constitutional right, like abortion was at that time, and the court came up with this test, that was the deeply rooted in the history and traditions of the nation test, and said that medical aid in dying was not deeply rooted in the history and traditions of the country and so therefore it is not a fundamental right that's protected by the constitution. When the justices re-examined the abortion right back in a couple of years back, they decided that abortion was not deeply rooted in the history and traditions of the country. So the Dobbs decision doesn't really change anything for medical aid in dying in that medical aid in dying was already not a fundamental right that's federally recognized, but it does.
Speaker 3:It's still worrisome, right, like I mean. Obviously it's going to limit the ability for medical aid in dying to be recognized as a fundamental right. Going forward, you also have to question what other fundamental rights is the court going to examine, re-examine? Is the court going to decide that people actually don't have a fundamental right to refuse life support at the end of life. That's been recognized since the 90s as well, even the 80s. I'm really bad with dates today.
Speaker 1:Same. Yeah, I know I suck with dates.
Speaker 3:I'm getting decades wrong here. It was either late 80s or early 90s the Cruzan case, I think it was early 90s when it was ultimately decided. So, yeah, you have to worry and I think that the biggest concern is just what that case indicates for just healthcare autonomy in general. For just healthcare autonomy in general. You know the rights, yeah, of individuals to make these deeply personal decisions about what medical treatment they do or don't receive.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and you probably don't want to speak to this, but I'll say it out loud. It also. I mean that the Christian right, who's been like opposing a lot of things like medical aid in dying. They're in power now and obviously that's going to like affect things.
Speaker 3:And we're seeing a lot more cases be brought up, you know, like CMDA V Bonta, where the CMDA this association was bringing a first amendment right, a free speech right, and we know that this court has really strongly believes in free speech rights. So our opposition knows what they're doing. They're making the arguments that they know, are going to appeal to this current court and they're trying to get cases in front of this court. So, yeah, I do think, to kind of go back to your original question, I do think that there's reason to be worried.
Speaker 3:It's not a great time for individual rights in this country. It's not a great great time for health care rights in this country. We're seeing cases, obviously all of the abortion restriction cases, what they could lead to in terms of contraception and whatnot, and then also all of these limitations on gender affirming care. So many states are passing bans on gender affirming care, especially for minors, and so I think that there's a lot of reason to be worried. West Virginia just passed a law that um, I believe a constitutional um ban on medical aid and dying oh, they did, yeah, okay.
Speaker 3:So they're like we can't have medical aid and dying like no matter what yeah, I think the language of and this is true of, like most things we see on ballots right, they always use tricky language where it suggests it's doing something more limited than it actually is.
Speaker 1:But yeah, that passed in November, that's really unfortunate for, like people there, I always tell people, and you know, gender affirming care, not that I'm sure it's like an important issue for a lot of people, it's like an important issue for a lot of people, uh, but like I think that the stuff that we fight for has to be like a winnable um.
Speaker 1:I think gender affirming care for minors is just not, um, like an issue that was going to be popular, like anyways, um, but something like medical aid and dying. That is just so universal. And the thing that annoys me is people always find out that it's universal but maybe like later in life, at the point that they have an opinion let's say they're 20s or like 30s or even 40s maybe they haven't seen anyone go through excruciating pain. I mean, we're talking about like alleviating the pain of someone that's dying with like cancer. Words just don't do it justice, right? They're going through excruciating pain, like shit. You know, like I get a freaking cold sometimes and I'm like damn that that that really got me good. But this is that like times like 100 strive has a cold right now actually, so shout out to strive but, um, but you know, it's like I, I really think it's like the amount of like there's there's got to be.
Speaker 1:It's like I, I really think it's like the amount of like there's there's gotta be. It's like um wealth in in like wealth, inequality People don't understand how much like money, um other like really like a billion dollars is. What is it Like? A million dollars is like 32 years if you counted, and or it's like 32 days If you started like trying to count or something. A billion dollars is like 32 years. I forgot the exact like like analogy, but, um, the amount of pain that people go through, uh is just so like wild and I just think it can't be measured. And uh, you're trying to alleviate like the highest amounts of pain. That's that's like out there and my, you know your body, your body's just breaking down, um, but anyways, uh, that red is I mean, I just think it's a bigger uh.
Speaker 3:If like suffering could be measured, it's like the, it would be like the highest amount you know, or be like the biggest weight yeah, I mean, I think you know death is universal, like I think that there is a lot of pain anytime somebody can't access the health care that they want, whether, again, it's gender-affirming care, abortion care, end-of-life care. There's so much harm in not being able to access critical health treatment that you need or want. But I think how death is unique is that everyone is going to die. So everyone's going to be at this moment. Not everyone's going to die of cancer, not everyone's going to die of an excruciating disease and you're lucky if you're one of those people that doesn't but everyone is going to die. So we do need to start thinking about end-of-life health care before we're at the end of life.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we need to talk about death Exactly, even like abortion, which I think is like is an important issue. Not everyone really goes through that, or they even know people that go through something like that, like you know. So, like the actual amount of people that experience that, like the, the cohort of people is a lot smaller, but dying you would just think it as like the biggest coalition of people, because you know it's not like there's people that have learned, that have figured out how to like, like, escape it.
Speaker 3:I mean, I do think, though just to push back a little bit.
Speaker 1:I do think things like For sure, by the way go, you should always push back on me.
Speaker 3:We do affect so many more people. Well, first off, they, they. There's so many people that are receiving treatment or have received treatment we just don't know about.
Speaker 3:But, there's ripple effects too. Even if you yourself, obviously, husband, I don't think you're ever going to have an abortion, but you might have people in your life who need to access that option, or people in your life who have had kids or who have been pregnant, and even if that's not a healthcare option that you yourself are ever going to need to exercise like it does impact you when those options are um no longer available, because it's it's impacting people in your life that you love um and care about and you know, you know there's.
Speaker 3:It always kind of comes back to us Like we're all so much more connected than I think we even realize. And so when we see these prohibitions go up, when we see affect you and just from like a lawyerly standpoint, when we see these laws getting passed and when they go through the court system and are upheld, they're creating case law that says it's okay to remove these sorts of healthcare options, it's okay to prevent doctors from advising patients on these things, it's okay to prevent an individual from leaving the state to access certain healthcare, and even if that those cases were about abortion or gender affirming care, they will be applied to end of life treatment eventually, you know. So it's all connected and it's just a really scary time to see so many. I just think that, like abortion is really misunderstood by people, even like in popular media.
Speaker 1:They talk about these edge cases which are actually pretty important too, by the way like rape and stuff like that. Um, you know, rape of like, like a minor. But, like I said, if you know that someone could have a miscarriage and because of these abortion like rulings, they can't even get a, a pill, uh, for a miscarriage or something like that, that to me is just like absurd. But again, abortion, that's a.
Speaker 3:It's like the topic no one really wants to talk about too much, it's probably one of the hardest topics in the world, uh, but yeah, I don't like I like talking about it, but maybe I'm a minority um, you know, compassion and choices obviously doesn't have a stance um on abortion, you know. So all of these viewpoints are my own, but um, you know, but compassion choices has um written amicus briefs in abortion cases, because they do see that connection, they do see see the way that allowing abortion prohibitions and restrictions can affect end of life health care, because it's the same justifications, it's the same.
Speaker 3:I mean in some cases it's literally the same plaintiffs challenging these different laws.
Speaker 1:There's really one plaintiff. It seems like doing all this, that's like. The funniest part is like I think it's probably connected to, like, the Heritage Foundation or the Christian Medical Association or the Catholic Church, which are all kind of like interlinked, or Project 2025 even Again, not to get too political, but it's a lot of the same people.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's a lot of the same people, for sure. It's the same. We have the same opponents, and so I think it's really important for us to to to have one another's backs here and see the ways that we are connected, even you know, again, even if it's different folks who are ultimately going to be accessing these health care options. It's just important to see the way that we're all connected and then defend these rights. We just submitted an amicus brief in a Montana case about gender affirming care. Montana has passed a ban on gender affirming care. That is being challenged, and Compassion and Choices submitted a brief kind of talking about this. What, even though this case is about gender affirming care, about the rights of minors to get these health care options, limit Montana's recognition of, like the, their constitutional privacy rights, which has been extended to medical decision making, and so limiting it in this way that could definitely limit end of life care as well.
Speaker 1:So, ok, I guess it's my, it's my time to push back. So, politically again, I'm just thinking about this like straight up politics what could happen? Politically again, I'm just thinking about this straight up politics, what could happen. I do think, and some people say, that the reason Trump won this election is because he spent I don't know what the number was, but it was like $100 or $200 million on that one ad where Kamala is like she's for they, them, I'm for you, or something like that, and I think she voted for. This was just something she did a while ago too, but not that I'm a Kamala fan, but it was that she supported gender-affirming care for people in prison. They just ran that ad again and again and, to be real, it was effective. Even I was like huh, really.
Speaker 1:But I do worry when organizations like Compassion and Choices. But I do. I do worry when organizations like Compassionate Choices, gender affirming care for minors, and like MAID. I could totally see how they're all interlinked because, you know, freedom is freedom, but when it comes to minors, I don't know if this is a good issue for organizations like you guys to get involved in, just because of the pushback, because of, like more of the overall mission. What's right and wrong? Honestly, I'm not informed enough. I, if I, if I could be real about it, I'm probably like more against that. You know most people, I know almost everybody, I know, if you just mentioned that, and they're probably not super educated. I know that medical organizations do support it. So there's it's more complicated than than my understanding.
Speaker 3:But I just think it's like a losing issue for if we're trying to get made federally legal. So to be really clear, compassion and Choices did not and does not have a stance on gender affirming care for anyone, because it's just not our issue area. But why we entered an amicus brief in that case is because Montana has this constitutional privacy right that has been interpreted very broadly to extend to medical decision making. Oh, ok, so it allows individuals to make these like deeply personal decisions about what treatment they do and don't receive, and the plaintiffs in this case are saying that this extends to gender affirming care. We know from past case law that it also extends to end of life care, and so you have to kind of look beyond the discrete issue to figure out the broader effect.
Speaker 3:So, if we allow this constitutional right to be limited because we don't necessarily agree with what kind of care people are going to get in one discrete place. I personally think individuals should be able to get gender affirming care.
Speaker 1:Cool and, by the way, I appreciate that you're just open about it too.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and then that's my personal view. It's again not a compassion choices does not have a view on this, but that's my personal view.
Speaker 3:I think people should be able to access the health care that they want. But you know, even if I were to disagree with it by letting this constitutional right be limited just because I don't like one certain kind of care that somebody else was going to get, it's going to have a broad effect. It was going to limit then the kind of healthcare options I do want. And so you just have to think, like, ultimately, it's not up to the state to decide what treatment you should or shouldn't get. So it you know if, even if somebody else disagrees with it and this is the same argument that we're having in, like CMDA, vibhanta and all of these other cases just because these individual doctors disagree with it, just because these individual people don't want this option, doesn't mean you should limit somebody else from doing it if that's the option that they want. So I think it's just healthcare is such a personal decision and what we'd want for ourselves and what we wouldn't want for ourselves shouldn't affect what somebody else can have yeah, I do uh like agree with that.
Speaker 1:Freedom is really complicated, folks. The the thing is, it's really not just about what you want for yourself, it's what you'll allow for like others, which is where freedom of speech is really important too. It's like, yeah, obviously I want freedom of speech for what I want to say, but what about what other people say, shit you don't like? I did want to touch also on the Illinois bill. Again, our very own Susie Flack was in the news there. I don't know if you saw that clip or we're super proud of her. She's been doing some great advocacy work and there's a bill being introduced I can't believe it in the state of Illinois. Do you know much about that, or can you speak to it?
Speaker 3:I don't. So I know that it exists. I know Susie's doing such great work, she's such an inspiration to just like how much she has done for this movement. You know how much she has done um for this movement. You know um to carry on Andrew's legacy, um. So I know probably as much as you know, maybe even less than you know, um, um, but I have like I've I've looked into it and I have a personal interest, obviously, um in seeing it passed. But I don't work on um legislation at all. I only do court cases, um.
Speaker 1:So I so you know, I know what my colleagues are working on, um oh yeah, you're actually in like the weeds of the court cases, um yeah but I don't have like any special um knowledge here anything more again, I think probably yeah well, we'll just tell the audience that, like, basically, uh, what suzy has been doing is she's been meeting with lawmakers and talking about Andrew's story and I think that they did introduce a bill in Illinois. I'm not sure if it has votes to pass or anything like that or if it's at that stage, but even seeing bills introduced I think is a positive sign and she's done a great job of just raising awareness. My other question was more global. So I feel like we touched on like the local, like events.
Speaker 1:So medical aid in dying, or I think I don't know what they're calling in the UK. I try not to use the word assisted suicide, but I think in the UK they're calling it like assisted suicide and that bill has passed in the UK now, which is actually a big deal, because I think they didn't expect it to pass when it first got like introduced. But, yeah, medical aid in dying or an end of life like option act might be a thing in like the UK. Did you get? Did you get? Do you have any like thoughts on that? Anything that you want to share.
Speaker 3:I've seen the headlines in the news. I'm not. I haven't like read the actual text of the bill. My hope is that it follows the American model, with all of its rigorous safeguards and limitations. That it follows the American model rather than like the Canadian model or what we're seeing in other European countries.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it does, I think.
Speaker 3:I think it does.
Speaker 1:I think it follows the California model. Like you need to, you have to see two doctors, there's a waiting period and you have to even have a judge say yes, but something like that.
Speaker 3:The six months or less to live.
Speaker 1:Yeah yeah, six months, or yeah, like a terminal diagnosis?
Speaker 3:Yeah, I mean I think that those are really critical safeguards to making sure that really only individuals who are dying at the end of life are able to access it, and not folks with chronic conditions who do have treatment options available that might be able to manage those conditions. I think that's really important.
Speaker 1:So Canada, I have to. So I sent this stat to Streb yesterday. So Canada and California are compared a lot as far as like medically and dying goes, because they'd be both um legalized in 2016. Since 2016 to through 2021, 31 664 canadians have died under made, uh or like trying to use made, compared to only 3,344 in California. So what, that's like 10% Uh. So in Canada a lot more people are taking it.
Speaker 1:Canada's criticized a lot. Actually, um, I think that it's just more like expansive. It's not just about cancer, like, either. I might be uh, again that part wrong, but Canada doesn't seem to be like a model um that people that I don't know. It doesn't seem to be like a model that people that I don't know. It doesn't seem to be like a good model because almost the numbers are too high, because I can't think Canada has like 40 million. California has 40 million people. They're both. They both speak English, so it's very like comparable. You know, and I was trying to figure out why that is. The theory seems to be that a lot more people just know about it. In Canada there's more awareness where a doctor will tell you. In California it's like you have to ask the doctor what options do I have In Canada? They just tell you. I don't know what the right answer is there, but it seems like California is doing something right, so some people might argue wrong. I don't know.
Speaker 3:I think that Canada also has broader eligibility. So, I think it's not just folks with six months or less to live, and I think they also extend it to folks that have like mental conditions.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that's where it gets hairy.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah, obviously, that is not the model that Compassion and Choices advocates for. It's not one that I personally would want to see. I don't think we will see the Canadian model in the United States. I think that there's a reason why we have those again, that this is really an option for people who are going to die and just want to avoid some of that really, really awful, terrible pain at the very end, and that's that's why that's what we advocate for, you know.
Speaker 1:Yeah, most people in California, I think, that have taken made, have cancer or like ALS or something like that. That is just you know severe.
Speaker 3:Yeah, in the annual reports, the breakdown of what folks have, and I think overwhelmingly it's cancer, followed by I think you're right neurodegenerative diseases.
Speaker 1:Yeah, yeah, neurodegenerative, that's a good word, degenerative, that's a good word. But yeah, the Canadian model has me worried. But in general, I also think there's this lack of awareness. I've talked about this on other podcasts.
Speaker 1:But I watched a news story, I watched a show called Breaking Points and because of the UK bill, they covered a medical aid in dying. There's a left view and a right view, which is stupid. A medical aid in dying there's a left view and, like, a right view, which is stupid. Sometimes you just have one view, that's all there is. But they were talking about, like Oregon and stuff. But I feel like a lot of people in the US, especially in the East Coast, midwest states that don't have it, don't realize that California, one of the powerhouse state of the US, I would say, allows medical aid in dying. They weren't aware in their own news coverage and these are, you know, people that cover the news. It's just. And then again, I've talked to doctors I've talked to, like other people. People are just not as aware of the fact that medical aid in dying is allowed in California as you would think it's kind of strange almost like you would think something like that would just be so you know people would just know about it.
Speaker 3:I think you know people don't think about death, so they're not thinking about what options are available. You know, yeah, time I, this country. It's just. Death is such a taboo subject. People don't like to talk about it. They don't like to think about it. I get it, I don't. You know, I don't always like to think about it and talk about it. I mean it's, yeah, it's, it's death is kind of a bummer, it's definitely a downer.
Speaker 3:You know it's hard and people it's scary and there's so many unknowns and there's a lot of, obviously, grief and it's a hard topic. I've gotten obviously a lot better talking about it because I get paid to, it's my job, but it is just something that's really hard. So I think that people aren't again, people aren't thinking that they'll ever need this option. It's just not kind of entering into their minds as a possibility. I don't think most of us have thought about what healthcare would we want at the end of life If we were in a terrible car accident and couldn't speak for ourselves, we were in a persistent vegetative state or something you know? Would our family know what we want? Do we have documents in place? I know, yeah, that's so true, so many people don't.
Speaker 1:they don't have like yeah, I mean like a DNR, what like? What the hell would you want?
Speaker 3:You think about those things. You know like we'll have time, but we don't need those now. Those are for older people, but the reality is we can get sick at any time, we can have an accident at any time. It's scary, and I think like it's scary, right. So people just don't want to think about it and by, like having to have those conversations and filling out those forms, we're forced to think about it. We're forced to like accept and confront our mortality, and that is not a pleasant thing, and so we avoid it, and so I think Someone will die.
Speaker 2:What.
Speaker 3:Yeah, so I think I mean that's part of it, right. It's just that people don't think about it, you know, and then yeah it's. I think Compassion and Choices has been doing a lot of education to ensure that more people are aware of this option and to make people more comfortable talking about issues about death and dying, but obviously we have a long way to go.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think that California has. I don't know if it's intentional or not, but they just they have struck the right balance because it's like you ask for it, then it's there, but it's not being pushed on you. You know what I mean. It's kind of like seems like the right compromise and the right way to do it. Like if you're really in pain, you ask your doctor oh, here's an option but the doctor's not like telling you about the option before you ask for it Again. I don't know what the right way to do it is, but I feel like there's something. It seems like the right approach. So let's zoom in for a second and before we close this out, I would like to just ask you what is it? You know you often work with people who are near the end of their life. What is that like for you? You know, on a personal level.
Speaker 3:Yeah, it's hard. It's hard. I mean, I think in doing this work, I try, I try really hard not, you know, I don't to center myself. It's it's not about me, it's about other people, um, but I also can't deny the fact that it does affect me. It is really hard. Andrew's death was really hard. Um, I got so close to him with working with him and it was husband you and I talked about this after Andrew passed.
Speaker 3:But it was especially hard because I was like, well, I'm just his lawyer Like I have to have this awareness of, like, who I was in his life and like there's so many people who knew him so much better than me, um, longer than me, you know, and so there's like I felt almost like selfish in in grieving, like who am I to grieve when there's so many people who are hurting so much more than me? Um, but then invalidating what I'm feeling and denying what I'm feeling, that doesn't help me, that doesn't serve me either. So I think it is really hard to to process this again. Like I'm just the lawyer, but I'm also a lawyer who's doing this work because I care deeply about these people. And so, yeah, when a client passes away, it's hard. These people, um, and so, yeah, when a client passes away, it's hard, um, and you just have to take time for yourself. Um, yeah, just have to take time, it's.
Speaker 3:I'm trying to remember when I got the news that Andrew had passed away, uh, me and another colleague who was really close with him, megan, who was also on the podcast before. You know, she and I were texting and talking and I think we just ordered like pizza and junk food and just did stuff that made us really happy. Like we listened to music really loud and I painted and it was just like we were like I, I think andrew would like the way that we're processing this. It was like we're eating a lot of like yeah, pizza and just yeah, listening to great music, um, um, and just kind of finding like happiness and connection even in that really, really sad moment yeah, I'll speak to that too.
Speaker 1:Um, you know, I was obviously in in in the larger perspective. I was pretty close with andrew, but when he passed, I'm around his, his mom, susie, you know, steve, kelly, katie, and uh like even someone like strev I'm like man, I actually haven't known him that long. In the grand scale of things, I was like these people are going through something. You know my, you know I. I kind of felt like uh, what you like described. I was like you people are going through something. You know my, you know I kind of felt like, uh, what you like described.
Speaker 1:I was like you know who the hell am I to even like grieve about this, what these people have lost, you know this uh force in their life. Um, you know, I felt like guilty, almost like you know, having that, like having him being be that like important like in my life. But, yeah, I think I learned through you and through like talking like other people and through uh, kendrick lamar, that we uh all grieve different, um, and everyone has their own uh like uh process. But, uh, before we close it out, um, I gotta ask you a question. I'm gonna pass it on, like over to strev, like andrew used to do to me. But before I get to that, what is your favorite type of pizza? Um?
Speaker 3:I think I don't. I don't think andrew's gonna like my answer. I kind of like bougie pizza and it's. I definitely don't like deep dish and I'm sorry okay um, I like a bougie pizza, I like, like a, like you know what is it? The, the, the Napoli style, I don't know, like the really thin crust with like the bubbles and the charge, and like the like. Neapolitan. Yeah, yeah, my brain. I was like I kept on going. Napoleon, I was like that's not right, it's not Napoleon pizza.
Speaker 3:I don't think the French make good pizza, but yeah. So I think I like a bougie pizza, but if I'm getting like an every man's pizza, it's going to be New York style. I'm sorry, do I have to leave the podcast now?
Speaker 1:Soon, soon. No, that's acceptable. What toppings though? Yeah, toppings though.
Speaker 3:Okay, you guys really are going to kick me out. I eat a weird pizza. So if it's like the Neapolitan style. I'm probably going to do like a margarita or something like that, I don't know, maybe a guac or something like that, I don't know, maybe a quachey famagy, I don't know. But if I'm doing greasy pizza I know it's bad, but I really like pineapple and jalapenos and sometimes I even put olives on it I eat still like I'm pregnant, I don't know what to say, pineapple has actually grown on me.
Speaker 1:It sounds fun. Yeah, I just want to do that. When we go get pizza we get some tavern style, which is that thin crust pizza. So locals in Chicago actually like thin crust. You can't eat deep dish all the time, but you can eat.
Speaker 3:You can't eat it all the time. I mean, first of all, it takes forever to make.
Speaker 1:Like.
Speaker 3:I used to work at a pizza shop when I was in high school and people would order it and it takes so long to make and also it's like pizza lasagna. I don't know, I don't know, I don't like it.
Speaker 1:I get it. I get it, but the tavern style you can't hate on that.
Speaker 2:But anyway, strev, you got anything for us? Yeah, so I had. A lot of my questions were answered, so thank you for that.
Speaker 2:But I did have one question. That kind of circles back to the Canada, the Canada method, where you know a lot of these opponents of MAID are, have this slippery slope argument where they kind of think that these safeguards are going to just fall out, or the snowball effect that will go the direction of Canada. Or worse, they even say, like if we let made laws go into effect then B will happen, and if B happens and C will happen, and so on and so forth, and then they go gosh, and what if B happens, you know? But I guess my question for you is well, it just seems kind of like a hypothetical philosophy more than an actual legal argument. Does this argument actually have any weight in the legal system and in courts?
Speaker 3:I don't think so. No, I mean, first off, the slippery slope arguments are incorrect in the United States. Arguments are incorrect in the United States, like these laws have been on the books since the mid nineties and we haven't seen any of these slippery slope fears happen in the United States. And Compassionate Choices, which is like the leading voice in this movement, always is advocating for these safeguards to be in place. And so I think we're not seeing the slippery slope arguments play out first and foremost In court.
Speaker 3:When you have these super hypothetical arguments that the folks are kind of relying their case on, that's not an actual issue or controversy before the court, and so oftentimes the courts find that the plaintiffs don't actually have standing. You have to have like an actual harm of something that has actually happened, not something that your fear is going to happen. You know it has to be something that is reasonably imminent and likely to happen, so or already has happened. So we have had um cases where, yeah, they're just slippery slope after slippery slope argument and the court is like this isn't actually what's happening, um, and there's no, because it's not actually happening, uh, there's no harm. Um. We do see a lot of cases kind of get dismissed on that those grounds.
Speaker 2:That's good to hear, because that's just, that was always an argument that just kind of irked me the wrong way. Classes and college and stuff, and it just seemed like it's not. It's not like the way that.
Speaker 3:You know, I'm not a legal professional, but it seems like everything should be done incrementally, if that makes sense, and that's just kind of like skipping over things and kind of being careless and ultimately I mean ultimately, the place for those slippery slope arguments and to figure out the right solutions and to prevent those slippery slopes from being realized is in the legislature, not the courts. You know, there, you, if you're worried about X, y and Z, then talk about it when you know, at the legislative level, put in more safeguards, or when a bill is going to be passed, you know, make your arguments there. That's, that's the proper form, because they're, ultimately, they're just policy considerations.
Speaker 1:Um, they're not actual legal harms um, I got one more question actually. Um, uh, hopefully you're not too low on time, but you know, like uh the, uh the posture of like compassion, like in choices.
Speaker 1:That's something I've been uh thinking like a lot about. So, like when you had a different supreme court, you know, uh, when, um, and you had a different uh government in place, you guys might be advocating for stuff. Well, now you might be more like in the defensive, like posture. Can you like talk about how you guys have changed as like an organization with the new climate that you're in you?
Speaker 3:know, I think we've always, we've always done both, even when the courts were friendlier, even when the political landscape was was friendlier, I think we've always been advocating for the passage of medical aid and dying and other end of life options on a state level and then having these kind of defensive lawsuits where, you know, even even in when the courts were friendlier and again the political landscape was friendlier, we would still see legal challenges to medical aid and dying laws whenever, wherever they were passed. So I think you know, unfortunately, like I don't see an end to defending against those kinds of lawsuits, I think they're going to continue for a while. But we're, and even now, when things are a little bit scarier, we're still, we're still working on at the state level to get these laws passed and then also working at both the state and federal level to make sure that, yeah, folks have have are able to access whatever treatment option they want. You know we talk a lot with Compassion Choices, we talk a lot about medical aid in dying, but that might not be the right option for a person.
Speaker 3:They might not be eligible for it because, you know, if you like, for instance, have, like dementia, you're not going to be a candidate for medical aid in dying. So we want to have the widest range of end of life options available to make sure that a person can see everything that's available and figure out what is right for them, because, again, it's not always going to be medical aid in dying. A person also might just you know, that just might not be the way they want to, that just might not be the way they want want to, to, um, that just might not be the right option for them. So I don't know. Um, I kind of lost my train of thought there no, I mean, that's actually super interesting.
Speaker 1:Uh, strive you, strive, you got anything else else I do not.
Speaker 2:Just thanks for being my friend's lawyer. No, it really is a commendable and noble thing that you're doing here and putting your emotions on the line, like we said, and thanks for all that.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I'm just. I feel so lucky to have known Andrew, even in just the limited capacity. Although you know again, I was, I was his lawyer, but he would also like text me at like nine at night about Tom Petty.
Speaker 1:So you're a Tom Petty fan, nice.
Speaker 3:I don't even know how we got on the topic of Tom Petty, but I remember cooking one day and I'm just like texting Andrew about Tom Petty. He told me he went to the concert.
Speaker 1:remember cooking one day and I'm just like texting andrew about tom petty because he told me he went to the concert. Yeah, so one of the coolest things that uh, the concerts that I went to like andrew with is we got to see tom petty, uh, me and andrew, um, basically like a month before he passed maybe two, three weeks. It was one of the one of his final shows. That was my first tom petty show, my kind of introduction to tom petty. I'm a big, big fan now.
Speaker 3:But yeah, andrew was, every time I think of Tom Petty it's always, uh, I always think of like Andrew yeah, but yeah, I mean I just I learned, I learned so much from Andrew and, like he, I, he has had such like an ongoing impact to so many people and I think you know we were talking earlier about like feeling like our grief was selfish. Like who am I to be so sad? I think that just also goes to show like how special Andrew was that even like his lawyer you know, even these people that he might have only talked to once or twice were so like heartbroken by his passing and so affected by his life and he just he lived such a great life and he was such a good example of how to live your life. He was a great person and I think I see his effect carried on so much through his friends and even within the organization. I mean, people still talk about him.
Speaker 3:He was just really, really special and so I just feel lucky to have been able to get as close to him as I was and just to be able to work with him on something that was so meaningful and like also, what an incredible person to be dying and decide that you want to be in a lawsuit to try to protect this option. Even you know he knew that, like the lawsuit wasn't going to resolve before he passed, and yet he still wanted to dedicate his time to it. I just he was just such a example of selflessness, just a really, really good person who thought about others so much, and I don't know, I think that's evident in so many areas of his life.
Speaker 3:So I just feel really lucky to have known him and then to get to continue to get to know him through his like loved ones, who I am now, you know, thankful to know as well.
Speaker 1:Yeah for sure, right back at you. He just had uh ability to just acquire cool people in the world. Um, a lot of my um friends that I hang out with uh nowadays, um in in in california, are actually you know, they're friends of his that became uh friends of mine after, uh you know, he passed and he has a really unique set of friends and like people that he elected uh like I say, in life, and they're all just really cool, kind, uh compassionate people and you know like we me and him talked about this a lot, I think well, he never said this straight up, but you know this, this my uh this is me speculating, but I really wanted to be like a force for good, like he realized what was happening to him and he could channel that energy whichever way. And you know I've seen him trust me that that like sickness, it was tough, it's one of the toughest things I've ever seen someone go, probably the toughest thing I've seen uh, uh someone go through I I always tell the story like one of the worst things I saw was one of the feats of strength like I saw was he actually uh, streb meant like a lot to like andrew and their friendship was so cool.
Speaker 1:They're just so goofy and like funny. Some of the like one of the coolest uh friendships like I've ever seen and streb was getting married. Like what was it? August 2021?
Speaker 2:uh september.
Speaker 1:Okay, so september and andrew was in bad condition at that time, um, but uh, we both were like obviously like invited, so we decided to go. He struggled on the plane. Um, the way it was really hot during, like, the wedding. Uh, the sun was just blasting on.
Speaker 1:It was brutal, it was brutal, like he was already going through a tough time and he toughed it out. He never complained. Honestly, that wedding was so much fun because, uh, we just got to hang out and chill and uh, he, he went through all that just because he thought it was like the thing to do. You know, he just. And then we, we all draw strength from him to this day. So those acts that, like he, you know those, those, those feats of strength that we know, um, we just it, just it does help in my like everyday life too. Every anytime I'm down or you know, maybe I'm working out or something or you know, going through something, you know you think of Andrew and it does give you strength because, uh, you know, a lot of that is like mental, and to be able to see someone go through it uh was just like incredible and the fact that he wanted to be that person for us is such a blessing.
Speaker 2:He could have taken it in any other way. Yeah, just such a highly empathetic individual. I'll never forget that he made it out there for that. Actually, it was just two months before he passed away. It just makes it incredible Wait so wasn't that 2022, then Strev? Yes, that was 2022.
Speaker 1:Okay, oh, so wait. Your wedding was two months before he passed.
Speaker 2:A little over two months before. Yeah.
Speaker 1:Wow, that just timeline is wild actually then.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:So that's when he was really.
Speaker 2:So that just gives us a show, how crazy it was. I mean his resilience is insane actually.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's actually pretty insane. You know Strev, he's a marathon runner now, like I can say that and we'll talk every now and then. And yeah, I think to have something like that, to have someone like that to give a group of people inspiration, I think that the effects of the positivity that he put out into our worlds anyways is like incredible. I think I would be a way more cynical human being if I hadn't met Andrew. You know, you see so much shit in the world. There's so many reasons to doubt other people and all these things. But yeah, like I always, like especially I've been in the business world. You know, I've gone through some shit there and the scene like kind of the dark side of people, but like Andrew was that story just that person who showed like it doesn't have to be that way. There are people that to the end there, that's just who they are and it's uh, it's amazing to have to have known, have known people like that.
Speaker 3:Was it your bachelor party that you played golf at?
Speaker 2:Yeah, we did the bachelor party out in Oceanside.
Speaker 3:He was telling me about that and I didn't realize it was you until just now. But he was telling me about that and I't realize it was you until just now, but he was telling me about that and I told him. So I played um field hockey growing up and so I told him that I can't golf because I I hit the ball like I'm playing field hockey still. So I have to like you know, like it's like happy Gilmore you have to like oh wow, yeah he told me he was gonna um, he was gonna hit some balls like happy Gilmore.
Speaker 3:So I don't know, I didn't get to see it. I don't know if he actually did, but he told me he was going to.
Speaker 1:So please, if he didn't, don't that's a good memory in my head um, that I've created so.
Speaker 3:But yeah, I didn't. I didn't realize that was you until just now. That's awesome. I remember he talked a lot about you and now it's all kind of clicking yeah, that bachelor bachelor party was uh was special also yeah, that was fun.
Speaker 1:These guys all flew out um and uh, not just streb but all of his uh friends and, like andrew's friends, all flew out. Man, that, that like happened in like the blink of an eye, huh I was like yeah, so that was like june of that year or something like that.
Speaker 2:It's definitely not something I think about as the quintessential bachelor party. Obviously, we went to Oceanside for a reason you know, and just hanging out with Andrew and having everyone there was just special in its own right. But yeah, good times.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's cool to reflect. I can't believe it, but it's been over two years now since Andrew's passed. And, jess, thanks for being the first person, because now it's the end of the podcast, so we're done with all the legislative and more deeper questions. But, yeah, thanks for being on here because I've been really wanting to get back to record some episodes. I've been like who should I interview? And uh, who like who should we talk to? And there was all these people, but it seemed like, like, like it was bound to be you and I like I think, um, yeah, I think, and it made perfect sense too. And uh, yeah, thanks for being our first, you know podcast guest with me and Strev at the helm.
Speaker 3:Yeah, well, you guys are my first ever podcast.
Speaker 1:Oh, wow, nice Okay.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Well, hopefully you had fun. We'll close this out and we just thank you for being here. We love Compassion and Choices. I think it's a great organization. I haven't really encountered an organization like them before and hopefully people enjoy this episode, because I definitely did. Thank you guys, thank you, take care everybody. Thank you.