California’s legislative year has entered its final crucial stage, with the governor being required to make decisions on all bills by October 13. One of the bills garnering significant attention is SB 403 proposed by State Senator Catherine Blakespear. Critics like Lee Shaomin argue that the bill could institutionalize euthanasia and potentially become a tool for pressuring the elderly, weak, and disabled, urging the public to call on the governor to veto it.
SB 403 was introduced in February of this year and its core content involves amending the “End of Life Option Act” (commonly known as euthanasia), by eliminating the existing sunset provision to make the bill permanently effective. Currently, the bill is awaiting the governor’s approval, and if not rejected, it will automatically come into effect.
Opponents argue that while appearing as a mere technical revision, in reality, it opens the door to expanding euthanasia. The California Family Council pointed out that Blakespear had publicly advocated for the relaxation of euthanasia policies during a 2024 meeting at Carlsbad City Hall.
She previously introduced SB 1196, attempting to extend euthanasia to “non-terminal patients,” including those with early-stage dementia. Although the bill was rejected, she emphasized continuing to push forward, with SB 403 seen as the starting point for her strategy.
When California passed the “End of Life Option Act” in 2015, due to significant controversy, lawmakers specifically included a “sunset clause” expiring in 2031 for future review and amendment purposes. Just last year, 1,281 Californians underwent euthanasia. However, SB 403 aims to completely remove subsequent monitoring and review mechanisms.
Lee Shaomin, Chair of the Pacific Justice Institute Bay Area and President of the Organization for Justice and Equality, stated: “Doing so is equivalent to abandoning any subsequent oversight, exposing patients and the elderly to greater risks.”
Opponents cite cases in Canada, Belgium, and the Netherlands as clear warnings. These countries initially had restrictions on euthanasia, which gradually expanded to the point where even young patients with depression can now request death.
Lee Shaomin pointed out a case in the Netherlands where a 24-year-old youth, suffering from depression, applied for euthanasia and was eventually granted. In Quebec, Canada, a patient applied in the morning and was euthanized in the afternoon; once a patient loses decision-making capacity, death becomes almost the only option.
The California Family Council believes that SB 403 completely fits this pattern. They question: “If there are no hidden concerns, why rush to permanently enact this law? The answer is clear: the goal is not regulation but normalization of suicide.”
The California Family Council emphasizes that the so-called “dignified death” often becomes the forced choice for patients, the elderly, and disabled individuals. Without supervision and complete data, it’s impossible to confirm whether patients are being coerced. If SB 403 passes, it will completely eliminate the possibility of future review and amendment.
Lee Shaomin also emphasized: “If California goes down this path, the elderly, mentally ill, dementia patients, and disabled individuals will be at great risk.”
Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council, believes that SB 403 will send the wrong message, stating, “This is not compassion but dehumanization and abandonment. By making assisted suicide permanent, we are telling the elderly, disabled, and depressed patients that their lives can be discarded.”
Lee Shaomin told Epoch Times that even without SB 403, the current healthcare system is heavily biased toward hospitals and insurance companies, often pressuring patients to be discharged prematurely. He emphasized that the problem lies within the system and not healthcare professionals: “Hospitals often prefer patients to be discharged quickly for high profits, regardless of life or death.”
He warned that many hospitals and nursing homes require patients or their families to sign “Advance Directives,” but in emergencies, this document may become a reason to refuse treatment. He gave an example of a patient who was denied treatment during surgery due to a family member’s mistaken signing, leading to the patient’s death. “Do not sign Advance Directives; if you have already signed, revoke it immediately and demand full treatment from the hospital.”
Lee Shaomin recalled the continuous controversy surrounding assisted suicide laws since its passage in 2015, noting that it even required attaching the proposal to the budget bill that year to pass, with even then-Governor Jerry Brown criticizing the process as inappropriate.
In 2021, SB 380 further shortened the patient’s “cooling-off period” from 15 days to just 2 days and even allowed patients to not personally receive the medication, further weakening protections. “Even divorce and buying a car have cooling-off periods, but a human life only has 48 hours, is this reasonable?” Lee Shaomin questioned. He warned that lawmakers’ common tactic is to “promise review initially, then gradually make it permanent,” ultimately stripping away safeguards for patients.
Lee Shaomin concluded by urging all citizens to take immediate action and call the governor at 916-445-2841 and leave a message saying “Please veto SB 403.” Alternatively, email at https://www.gov.ca.gov/contact/, choose SB403, and click “Con” (oppose).