Signed into law in October 2015, and implemented on June 9, 2016, the End of Life Option Act1  (SB380) has been helping terminally ill Californians end their lives, at the time of their choosing. At the bill signing, Gov. Brown stated, “In the end, I was left to reflect on what I would want in the face of my own death. I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others.”2 

As a refresher, the bill states that a California resident who is at least 18 years old who has a terminal disease (prognosis of fewer than six months to live), can consent on their own to (without undue influence or duress) obtain approval for a prescription from a California physician that will end their life. The prescription would be filled by a pharmacist in their usual course of business. It would be obvious to a pharmacist that the prescription was written to end the life of the patient because of the large quantities of medications being prescribed. The law does not require a specific type or quantity of medication. It is up to the professional judgement of the prescribing physician.

The individual must be able to make their own medical decisions and take the medication without assistance. Safeguards are in place to help ensure there is no undue influence on the patient (two oral requests of their physician, at least 15 days apart, and a final written attestation). If necessary, based upon the individual’s physician, a psychologist or psychiatrist may need to assess the patient’s ability to make a sound medical decision. This law is legislated to expire on Jan. 1, 2026.

This law was passed in the California legislature largely due to the story of Brittany Maynard. In 2014, she was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. Unable to end her own life at the time of her choosing, and fearing morphine-resistant pain, she moved to Oregon to take advantage of its Death with Dignity Act. She partnered with the organization Compassion and Choices to help get the new End of Life Option Act passed in 2015.3  The intention of this law was to provide a safe, effective mechanism for terminally ill adult, mentally competent Californians to end their lives in a safe way at the time of their choosing.

Aid in dying is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. This includes Montana, where it became legal by state supreme decision. The first state to pass such a law was Oregon in 1997. Legislative efforts continue in many states and can be tracked with advocacy websites.4 

On the provider side, health care professionals do not have to participate or assist patients in the process of obtaining the aid-in-dying medications. And if they choose not to participate, they do not have to help the patient find providers who are willing to help them die at the time of their choosing. When a patient dies because of this law, the resulting death will not be considered suicide. The cause of death should be reported as the underlying condition.5  Health care providers who participate are protected civilly, criminally and administratively from liability. An in-depth description of how the law applies to a California pharmacist was published in 2017,6  as well as descriptions of Kaiser Permanente’s experience with the new law,7  and an early comparison of California statistics compared to Oregon and Washington.8  The article by Tony Park, PharmD, JD,6  provides an analysis of the original law, comprehensive definitions of legal terms and the checklist a physician must go through in order to assess a patient for the aid-in-dying prescription. An in-depth analysis of how California pharmacists relate to counseling and dispensing the life ending medication was published in 2021.9  This 2016 study is important, as it explores the moral and ethical concerns pharmacists have in dispensing medication that is intended to be lethal.

On Feb. 11, 2021, an amendment to SB380 was introduced by Sen. Susan Eggman (D).10  The amendment passed Oct. 5, 2021 and reduces the 15-day wait period to 48 hours, and if the attending physician determines a patient will die before the end of the wait period, the 48 hours may be waived. The bill adds or clarifies additional language, including eliminating the Jan, 1, 2026, repeal clause in Section 10. The list of health care provides approved to determine if a patient can make their own medical decisions is expanded to include licensed clinical social workers or professional counselors. The proposed law also penalizes individuals who obstruct or mislead a patient who is seeking aid-in-drying drugs (civil liability. Gov. Newsom signed the bill and it went into effective Jan. 1, 2022.

In compliance with the original legislation, the California Department of Public Health releases annual statistics relating to the End of Life Option Act; reports from 2016–201911  are available to the public. This information is submitted to the California Department of Public Health by participating physicians. Compiled for comparison, this information sheds light on many areas from patients initiating the process, physicians writing prescriptions, to patients ending their lives from ingesting the medication. Biographical information about the participants’ age, race/ethnicity, underlying illness, type of insurance, drugs prescribed and location of ingestion are also provided. Graphically represented, this information provides health care providers, patients, consumers and policymakers a clearer picture of the impact of this law over time.

The number of patients beginning the process of obtaining a prescription to end their lives started with 258 in 2016, increased to 736 by 2019 and dropped slightly to 662 in 2020.11  Not everyone who starts the approval process obtains a prescription. That number started as 191 in 2016 and 677 in 2020. The number of individuals who ingested the medication and died as a result has increased from 111 in 2016 to 435 in 2020. The resulting death rate per 10,000 has increased from 6.06 in 2016 to 15.4 in 2020. There have been a range of participating physicians who began with 173 in 2016 and concluded with 262 in 2020. It is not known if the physicians are equitably distributed geographically throughout California.

The age of those participating (patients) is greatest from 70–79 years old.11  This group is represented at a greater percentage than those in the ages of 60–69 and 80–89. There are far fewer patients above 90 years old or less than 60 years old. The largest range of ages occurred in 2019 with the youngest being 23 and the oldest 104.

Figure 1.

Participant Age Range

Figure 1.

Participant Age Range

Close modal

Participant Age Percentages

The race/ethnicity of the participants (patients) skews overwhelmingly white.11  There are very small percentages of Asian and Hispanic participants. This remains consistent from 2016–2020. In many years there were no Black participants.

Figure 2.

Participant Race/Ethnicity

Figure 2.

Participant Race/Ethnicity

Close modal

Participant Race/Ethnicity

The underlying illness of the participants (patients) is also skewed toward malignant neoplasms (cancer).11  However neurological diseases such as ACLS and Parkinson’s are also represented. There are similar percentages of cardiovascular disease and respiratory illnesses.

Figure 3.

Underlying Illness

Figure 3.

Underlying Illness

Close modal

Underlying Illness

The data for type of drugs prescribed are only available for 2018 to 2020. In 2018, nearly an equal number of prescriptions were written for solely a sedative or a three-drug combination of a cardiotonic, opioid and a sedative. By 2019, that percentage changed overwhelmingly to the three-drug combination and remained consistent in 2020.

The number and type of drugs prescribed have changed over time. Previously, secobarbital and pentobarbital were used. They became unavailable due to manufacturer issues and price. Recently, the drugs of choice considered by prescribers include diazepam, morphine, digoxin and amitriptyline.12 

Figure 4.

Drugs Prescribed

Figure 4.

Drugs Prescribed

Close modal

Drugs Prescribed

The data for 2018 to 2020 (data for 2016 and 2017 was not available) concludes with the majority of participants informing their family of their decision to end their lives with medication (87.5%, 86.4%, 83.4%) and ingesting the medication while at home (92%, 88.1%, 92%).11 

The majority of patients in California taking advantage of the End of Life Option Act are in their 70s, white and terminally ill with cancer. It is not known why the other races or ethnicities have not participated at higher percentages. Now that the amendment to the legislation is law, the number of individuals participating may increase slightly. The issue of equity remains present, as program awareness, the number of participating physicians (access to the program) and the cost of the medication (if insurance does not cover it) remain potential factors for who chooses to participate in this program.

More Californians may use this law with additional health care provider education at their disposal. All health care providers in the continuity of care (physicians, pharmacists, nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners and social workers) could help educate patients about this law and how it can be used appropriately. Even if a health care provider has a moral objection to participating in this law, providing patient education and allowing the patient to make up their own mind is a way to give patients all the available options as they make difficult decisions about their lives.

It may be useful for pharmacists to interact with physicians participating in this program to better understand the selection of medication(s), dosage and directions for use. When a pharmacist receives a prescription intended to end the life of the patient, they will be better able to counsel the patient on how to use the mediation appropriately. Physicians may benefit from hearing the questions patients ask when filling their prescription.

Pharmacists wishing to learn more about this topic and potentially earn continuing education credit should explore options at professional pharmacy organizations and conferences. Medical professional organizations may also offer continuing education opportunities on this important topic.

2.
Booker
B.
(
2015
).
California Governor Signs Physician-Assisted-Suicide Bill Into Law
.
3.
Compassion & Choices.
Brittany Maynard
.
4.
Death with Dignity Acts.
(
2021
).
6.
Park
T.
The End of Life Option Act – The Pharmacist’s Role
.
Journal of Contemporary Pharmacy Practice
2017
;
64
(
3
):
29
35
. .
7.
Nguyen
H,
Gelman
E,
Bush
T,
Lee
J,
Kanter
M.
(
2017
).
Characterizing Kaiser Permanente Southern California’s Experience With the California End of Life Option Act in the First Year of Implementation
.
JAMA Intern Med
2018
Mar
1
;
178
(
3
):
417
421
.
doi:
.
PMCID:
[PubMed]
.
8.
Petrillo
L.
(2017). The End of Life Option Act: Important Considerations for Pharmacists as California Implements Physician Aid in Dying
.
JCPhP
2017
;
64
(
3
):
24
28
. .
9.
Gavaza,
P,
Pinder
J.
(2021). Psychosocial Factors Associated with Pharmacists’ End-of-Life Medication Counseling and Dispensing
.
J Am Pharm Assoc (2003)
May–Jun
2021
;
61
(
3
):
308
315
.
doi:
.
Epub 2021 Feb 7.
11.
CDPH.
(
2021
).
End of Life Option Act. Center for Health Statistics and Informatics
.
12.
Meera
J.
(
2019
).
How ‘death with dignity’ laws allow terminally ill patients to take back control – sometimes at a price
.