This browser does not support the Video element.
Group of doctors argue California's End of Life Option Act violates freedom of religion
The California Legislature says terminally-ill patients have a right to die with dignity. However, a group of Christian doctors are trying to put a stop to it as they claim the law violates freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Andrew Flack looks like a healthy, 34-year-old man.
But this special education teacher from San Diego has been diagnosed with terminal colorectal cancer.
"Unfortunately, my body is rotting from the inside out. I am slowly dying from this horrible disease," Flack said.
It’s a disease that will cause Flack excruciating pain toward the end of his life.
"I’m afraid of severe and chronic pain, other components that come with dying from cancer and the side effects and how the body breaks down is pretty horrendous. We don't need to go into all those details," he said.
Flack has chosen medical aid in dying. It’s an option provided by Senate Bill 380, a California law that allows terminally-ill patients to take a combination of prescribed drugs that help a person fall asleep and die without the pain and suffering at the end of their life.
This browser does not support the Video element.
Right to Die: Group of doctors argue California's End of Life Option Act violates freedom of religion
The California Legislature says terminally-ill patients have a right to die with dignity. However, a group of Christian doctors are trying to put a stop to it as they claim the law violates freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
"From my understanding, it’s a very peaceful process and very humane and dignified death," Flack said.
But a group of Christian doctors filed a federal lawsuit seeking to invalidate the law. Dr. Jeff Barrows is the Senior Vice President of the Medical and Dental Associations.
"This is a moral injury, this causes our members moral distress because it goes against the very fabric of their religious beliefs," he said.
The group is asking a federal judge on Friday for a temporary injunction while the suit moves forward.
Dr. Barrows claims the law violates their freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
"We're talking about people that are of a strong religious faith, where practicing medicine according to their conscience is foundational for them and when you ask them to go against their conscience or to break some type of moral rule that they have that really causes them, first of all, moral distress and can also result in moral injury," he said.
Attorney John Kappos represents California residents and doctors who want to maintain the End of Life Option Act.
"Doctors who do not wish to participate are free to decline to participate with no liability to them. The only thing they have to do, is what good medical practice already requires and that is, they have to inform, they have to document, and they have to transfer medical records," he said.
For Flack, who is caught in the middle of this battle, none of this makes sense.
"I’ve never met any of these people who are bringing this suit to California," he said. "And I don't understand why they feel like me using that medication would ever impact them, at all."
The hearing requesting a temporary injunction has been scheduled in Federal Court at 10 a.m. on Friday.