Episode 24 with Jess Pezley

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Hello friends, we're back with another fun episode of
the Death with Dignity podcast.
We've been wanting to give ouraudience an update to where
things stand with medical aidand dying in California and in
the US.
I'm sure you've all seen somechallenges to the law as well.
That we'll get into.
Today's guest is perfect tohelp us navigate that space.
Jess Peasley is a senior staffattorney at Compassion and

(00:44):
Choices.
Not only does she work on thisstuff day in and day out, but
she actually worked closely withAndrew on advocacy efforts as
well, and they were real tight.
We had a really fun timespeaking with Jess.
Her expertise and experiencemade her the perfect guest for
the subject and she'll help usunderstand where MAID laws
currently stand and gives usinsight into what the future

(01:05):
holds.
Let's get into it that's cool.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
It was actually me, andrew, and uh tom, so I don't
know if you knew this, buthasban andrew and I were on that
same video game team that's anduh tom was the fourth person
and tom andrew and I played onthe same line.

Speaker 1 (01:24):
Yeah, they have good chemistry and you know I got to
join in on that and see how itwas.
But anyways, we can kind of getstarted.
I'm a little rusty at this, sowhoever's listening out there
like, excuse me a little bit,Give me a little slack.
That's a phrase I was lookingfor.
Jess, we're really happy tojust have you here.

(01:47):
I've been just looking forwardto talking to you and I feel
like you're the perfect personto just kind of get us back on
what's happening with MADE andwhat's happening nationally and
even locally as far asCalifornia goes.
But before we get into all that, I kind of want to ask about
you how did you get into thiscareer path?

(02:10):
What's your background?
And, yeah, I'd love to hearfrom you.

Speaker 3 (02:16):
Yeah Well, I went to law school.
I was like God, 20, 22, reallyyoung, really didn't know what I
wanted to do.
I just knew I wanted to be alawyer, but didn't really know
what that meant at all.
But I wanted to work onconstitutional rights.
That was kind of my thing.
And so I really wanted to finda career where I could work to

(02:41):
expand individual constitutionalrights.
And I learned about Compassionand Choices from an old boss of
mine.
When I was a first year lawstudent out in Oregon, I worked
for the ACLU of Oregon and myboss was Kevin Diaz, whose name
you might recognize because heis now my current boss at

(03:04):
Compassion.

Speaker 1 (03:05):
Choices.
Oh, he's the current CEO of CNC.

Speaker 3 (03:08):
Yeah, so he and I just stayed in touch over the
years and when he made thetransition to Compassion Choices
, I had no idea that thismovement existed or this field
existed, but learned about itfrom him and I realized it kind
of touched on everything Ireally cared about and provided
me an opportunity to do theexact kind of work I wanted to

(03:29):
do.
And so that is how I came toCompassion and Choice.
I mean, there's a lot moreyears in between and like other
jobs that I did, but yeah,that's how I ended up here
eventually.

Speaker 1 (03:42):
And how long have you been at Compassion and Choice
now?

Speaker 3 (03:45):
Five and a half years .

Speaker 1 (03:47):
And what's your actual title, just for everybody
.

Speaker 3 (03:50):
I'm a senior staff attorney for the legal and
policy department at Compassionand Choices.

Speaker 1 (03:56):
Cool and just for anybody who might not know what
does Compassion and Choicesexactly do?

Speaker 3 (04:02):
We are the oldest and most active nonprofit fighting
for end of life rights.
We work to ensure thatindividuals can access the exact
healthcare options that theywant at the end of life and
receive the treatment that theywant, make sure that they don't
receive any treatment that theydon't want and just make sure

(04:23):
that their wishes are beinghonored.
And so we work to have thewidest range of end of life
options available in everyjurisdiction so folks aren't
limited.

Speaker 1 (04:37):
Is there like a defining moment or something
that like took you down thiscareer path?
I feel like it takes a lot ofcompassion and like empathy
which, you know, a lot of peoplejust don't have the experiences
in life to like understand whatsomeone who's dying like goes
through.
Yeah, so was there somethingthat led you to this?
You're like this is what I wantto do.

Speaker 3 (04:55):
I think, like a lot of people, my first exposure to
the movement was throughBrittany Maynard's story out of
California.
She was in her 20s when she wasdiagnosed with terminal cancer,
had to move from California toOregon, completely uproot her
life to access Oregon's medicalaid in dying statute, and her

(05:22):
story became, you know, captured, I think, the attention of the
nation and I was part.
I was part of that.

Speaker 1 (05:28):
So oh you were, so you were part of that.
Okay, cool.

Speaker 3 (05:31):
Yeah, I wasn't really familiar.
I, you know, we talked to folkswho have a lot of personal
connection to the work, wherethey were exposed to it from a
young age.
They had family members withlong, prolonged deaths.
I've been really lucky thatthat hasn't been my experience.
I, you know, my little sisterhad cancer when we were really

(05:56):
young.
She actually had the same kindof cancer that Andrew had when
he was a kid a Wilms tumor.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (06:03):
Which is like a really obscure cancer I think.
I don't know, I'm not a doctorbut I don't.
You don't run into a lot ofpeople that have Wilms tumor,
but she had a stage four Wilmstumor and she's fine now so but
there was like a lot of exposureto hospital settings and
medical settings and kind of anunderstanding of death and dying
in a young age.

(06:23):
But, um, I am luckily not oneof those people who have had the
a super personal connection inmy life, seeing somebody die a
horrible death.

Speaker 1 (06:32):
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 onwas your connection with Andrew,
the whole reason.
So Andrew used to joke with me,before I even knew who you were

(06:52):
, that he had a lawyer namedJess and he loved being able to
say you know my lawyer, jess.
Do you want to like, touch likeupon your like a relationship
with him and how you guys gotconnected and the work that you
guys did together?

Speaker 3 (07:10):
Yeah, andrew, andrew was the best.
I wish all my clients could bejust like Andrew, because
working with him was so great.
We became connected becausethere was a challenge to
California's medical aid anddying law back in I don't know
the year, let me look it up,sorry.

Speaker 2 (07:32):
It's okay.

Speaker 1 (07:36):
All of the years are just like melding together in my
brain um, milling together mybrain, 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 yeahtell our patients about medical
aid and dying so it was um.

Speaker 3 (07:53):
Coincidentally, it was the christian medical and
dental associations, which isthe same um group that just uh,
challenged um one of the umabortion pills.
That went all the way up to theSupreme Court.
So they're really active inchallenging laws that they
disagree with, especially in thehealthcare sphere.
But yeah, so it was CMDA vBonta and this was a case that

(08:16):
was out of like around 2022 inCalifornia, and they were
challenging the recently amendedEnd-of-Life Option Act in
California, saying that itcompelled their speech.
These doctors who did not wantto prescribe medical aid in
dying.
But they were going furtherthan that Not only did they not

(08:37):
want to prescribe, they didn'twant to have to transfer medical
records of a patient who wasrequesting, they didn't want to
have to document their requests.
They really wanted nothing todo with anything.

Speaker 1 (08:48):
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 (08:58):
These like baseline medical obligations they wanted
to abandon because theydisagreed with the individual
choice that their patient waswanting for themselves.
So that's how I got to knowAndrew.
Compassion and Choices wasrepresenting folks who were
intervening in that matter.

(09:18):
So the case was brought by thisassociation of religious
doctors and dentists and theywere suing the state, and so we
intervened, or attempted tointervene, in that case so that
we wanted to make sure thatpatients' voices were heard, and
then also physicians who wereprescribing and working with

(09:42):
terminally ill patients.
Their voices were being heardas well.
So that's how I came to knowAndrew, and the first time I
called him I could just tellthat he was very unsure of me.

Speaker 1 (09:53):
I think like we all know skeptical Andrew.

Speaker 3 (09:58):
Yeah, I don't know if I was just too buttoned up, or
if he just was like I don't knowif 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 prettyquickly, like we were just
having this conversation and Ithink we both kind of dropped
the facades that we probablyentered the call with and it

(10:18):
just we hit it off and fromthere it was like so easy to
talk to him, everything caserelated.
You know, I'd call him aboutsomething related to the case
and then we would just talk forlike 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 hebecame a friend as well, which

(10:40):
is, you know, that doesn'talways happen.

Speaker 1 (10:43):
Yeah, for sure, andrew had that ability uh to
you know, uh always like kind oftreat people as friends first
and uh, he really like uhcarried the friendship moniker
well.
Um, yeah, like I said, he hesaid nothing, nothing but nice
things about you and it was coolto meet you through him and I
know that it gave him purpose tobe able to like help other

(11:07):
people and be part of the cause.
Um, the one thing I want totouch on that you mentioned is
there's an abortion pill case aswell.
I know it's not really uhconnected with made, but there's
uh.
I do think this is all kind oflike connected.
So so are you saying thatthere's an abortion pill that
the Christian MedicalAssociation is trying to get

(11:29):
stopped from, so people can'teven take a pill?

Speaker 3 (11:32):
Yeah, yeah, this was a case that was filed in Texas
very strategically with a veryconservative judge in Texas, and
it went all the way up to theUnited States Supreme Court and
they just ruled on it last term.
It was, I think, the Alliancefor Hippocratic Oath, which is a
group that was created reallyjust to challenge this abortion

(11:55):
pill which, I'm going to say itwrong.
It's like Mipha Priestone.
I always say Mipha because it'seasier.
I think it's Mipha Priestone,mipha Priestone, mipha Priestone
, I don't know Mifa, becauseit's easier.
I think it's Mifapristone,mifapristone, mifapristone.
Someone's going to hear thisand be cringing because I'm
probably butchering.

Speaker 1 (12:09):
Yeah, make those names hard on purpose.

Speaker 3 (12:11):
They do, they do?

Speaker 1 (12:12):
They're really hard to say Big medicine.

Speaker 3 (12:16):
Yeah.
So they challenged this pilland I think we're arguing that
it wasn't authorized the way itshould have been authorized and
all of such stuff.
It went all the way up to theSupreme Court, where the Supreme
Court threw the case out onstanding, saying that these
folks really weren't injured bythe existence of these drugs.

(12:38):
They weren't prescribing them.
They weren't being asked byanyone to prescribe them, there
wasn't any risk of it.
You know because doctors dohave this right that if they
disagree you know, on ethical orreligious grounds, that they
don't have to prescribe orprovide treatment.
The same is true for medicalaid in dying.

(12:58):
So they're really similar cases.
You know it's the same groupbeing funded by the same large
legal organizations.
I think it's Alliance DefendingFreedom that's behind both.
It's all connected.

Speaker 1 (13:16):
I want to touch on the abortion thing for a second,
because one thing that peopledon't realize and I learned from
you and like other people isthat it's not just like it's not
just abortion, that's kind oflike out there.
It's also like some people havemiscarriages and there's
certain pills that now that arehard to access for people who
have miscarriages, so people whoare trying to have kids, not

(13:38):
even trying to have likeabortions and a lot of people's
lives are like affected that waytoo, which is, again, it makes
no sense to me whatsoever butthere's like certain pills that
would be better for them andthey just don't have access to
them and that kind of is reallyunfortunate.

Speaker 3 (13:55):
These abortion pills are necessary for, for health
care, whether a person is endingtheir pregnancy because they
want to end it or because theydesperately want a kid and this
pregnancy is not going to workout for them.
Yeah, you know, with a lot ofmiscarriages not all of the
fetal tissue is removed from thebody just like naturally, and

(14:19):
so you have to take medicationsto ensure that it's all out and
make sure that you don't have aninfection or something else.
And so you see, in states wherethat have these really
draconian abortion prohibitions,where pregnant people are not
being able to access the carethey need.
And there is another I thinkit's an out of Texas A woman was

(14:44):
pregnant, was having amiscarriage, wasn't able to, or
she was having some sort ofpregnancy complications.
It wasn't a viable pregnancy.
I don't know if she wasactively miscarrying or not, but
she wasn't able to accessabortion services and because of
that she might be infertile now.
And you know, again was aperson who desperately wanted to

(15:04):
have a child.
It just that pregnancy was notgoing to produce a kid.

Speaker 1 (15:09):
Yeah, I feel like a lot of people just don't
understand this stuff, even whenit comes to medical aid in
dying.
Like you know, I've done a lotof research on this topic.
I'm like thinking about it alot.
Me and Andrew used to talkabout the opposite side, which
is a sit there and be like allright, what could they be
thinking?
It all kind of came down to thebasics.
It's just religious people whoare very politically active and

(15:31):
I just feel like the argumentsget so bogged down and so
confusing when it's prettysimple at the end of the day for
a lot of these things.
And I was like when I waspreparing for this podcast I was
like I don't want to get toopolitical.
Then I was like when I waspreparing for this podcast I was
like I don't want to get toopolitical.
Then I was like this wholething is political.
You can't really avoid politicswhen you talk about these
topics.

(15:51):
But speaking of like about somemore cases, I really want to
get, I want to use this podcastas an opportunity for people to
kind of catch up on what'shappening throughout California
and kind of like the rest of theUS.
So I wanted to ask you about Ithink it's United Spinal versus

(16:12):
the state of California, where Ithink people who are disabled
are saying that this violatesthe Americans with, or made
violates the Americans with,disabilities Act.
Do you want to talk about thatcase a little bit and where you
guys are at with it?

Speaker 3 (16:29):
Yeah, so United Spinal is the case that pretty
much immediately followed theconclusion of CMDA v Bonta.
So that case that Andrew was apart of, unfortunately he never
we never got the opportunity tointervene.
The state and the plaintiffs inthat case settled the case and

(16:51):
the case was dismissed.
And I can't remember the exactdates of that dismissal, I think
it was in May.
But Andrew passed away beforethe resolution of that case.

Speaker 1 (17:06):
So when they settled the case, what does that mean?
They both just walk away.

Speaker 3 (17:10):
So the state and the plaintiffs worked out an
agreement amongst themselves tothe state drop some of the
requirements and agreed to payplaintiffs a certain amount of
money and in turn the plaintiffsagreed to drop the lawsuit.
So we were not a part becausewe hadn't been able to intervene

(17:32):
yet we weren't parties to thecase and so we were not part of
those conversations at all andwe, you know, would have liked
to have been, but we didn't getthat opportunity.
So as soon as that case wassettled we saw, not long after
United Spinal come.
It was filed with the samejudge in, I think it's, eastern

(17:58):
District of Californiaindividuals with disabilities
and then some disability rightsorganizations that believe the
law violates the Americans withDisabilities Act and then
California's kind of similar law.
So that has been in the courtsystem for a while.

(18:20):
The case was dismissed at thetrial court level and they
appealed, plaintiffs appealedand it's at the Ninth Circuit
now.
So it's kind of confusing toobecause there's multiple appeals
at the Ninth Circuit.
So we have also tried tointervene in that case.
The judge did not rule.

(18:41):
The trial court judge did notrule in our motion to intervene
and he dismissed the case.
And when he dismissed the casehe was like, and now the motion
to intervene is moot and so hethen dismissed our motion to
intervene after the case hadalready concluded at that trial
court level.
So at the Ninth Circuit there'splaintiff's appeal, so that's

(19:02):
the group of individuals withdisabilities and the disability
rights organizations, theirappeal, and then separately we
have appealed the denial of ourmotion to intervene.
So there's these two kind ofappeals going on.

Speaker 1 (19:16):
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 (19:21):
It's so confusing, it gets so confusing.

(19:48):
So at the plaintiff's appeal oftheir dismissal we tried to
intervene in that as well, justto make it even more confusing.
And the court did not let us.
They denied our motion tointervene in plaintiff's appeal
while our other kind of pendingappeal is still going on.
But so we wrote, we submittedan amicus brief and in that
amicus brief we talked about allof the reasons we don't think
medical aid in dyingdiscriminates against people
with disabilities.
You know, at the end of life,when a person is terminally ill
and eligible to access medicalaid in dying, they pretty much
necessarily have a disabilityunder the definition of the ADA.

Speaker 1 (20:07):
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 knowmight have some.
You know they just can't do alot of like normal, like
functions.
But anyone with cancer in theirlast six months to live is also
a disabled person, correct?

Speaker 3 (20:23):
Yeah, under the ADA's definition.
I should look up the exactlanguage one second because I
don't want to say the wrongthing.

Speaker 1 (20:31):
Yeah, with the legal stuff we got to be careful.

Speaker 3 (20:33):
Yeah, you got to be careful.
You got to be careful.

Speaker 1 (20:36):
I'm just going to use the word alleged with
everything I've heard, that thatkeeps lawyers away from you.

Speaker 3 (20:43):
There you go.
Yeah, the ADA definesdisability as a physical or
mental impairment thatsignificantly limits one or more
major life activities.
So when you think of somebodywho is eligible for medical aid
in dying, they are going to beimpaired in their ability to
perform major life activities,just because, just because,

(21:03):
unfortunately, that's the natureof terminal illnesses.
Um, and so Compassion andChoices is an organization that
serves people with disabilities.
Um, most of our clients, youknow, have, um, disabilities,
and I think we we do as asociety.
When we think of disability, wethink of, like, a long-term

(21:25):
disability that a person has hadfor most of their life, and
disabilities can just affect youat a certain part of life where
you might not have had adisability prior to an illness
and then, because of the illness, you do.
So it's, you know.
Yeah, I think we need to shiftour understanding of what it

(21:48):
means to have a disability.
And so, you know, I agree, Iagree with plaintiffs on that
point.
But the individuals who areaccessing medical aid and dying
have a disability.
What I disagree with is thatthat medical aid in dying
discriminates, that the lawdiscriminates against them.
There are so many safeguardswritten into the law

(22:10):
specifically to ensure that anindividual's autonomy is being
honored by making sure that it'sa voluntary choice for them,
that there are other supportiveservices offered.
You know, the physicians haveto talk about other end of life
options and it's something like94% of people who access medical

(22:30):
aid and dying are also onhospice.
Some like a really high numberof people.

Speaker 1 (22:37):
When you say access, you mean like actually take it.

Speaker 2 (22:40):
Yes, yeah, I believe that, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 (22:42):
I think Andrew was on hospice as well when he took it
he was yeah.
Yeah, yeah, like he was onhospice, yeah, which is which is
actually just wild.
Because, uh, yeah, that thatreally makes you think about
things like differently, becauseit 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 longas they can.

(23:03):
They literally make it tohospice 94%.
Yeah, that's actually a reallyfascinating thing.
It just shows like I think itjust proves that point Like
they're not trying to die, thedisease is killing them, you
know.

Speaker 3 (23:16):
Yeah, I don't think that's like more evident than in
Andrew who just, you know, hedid not, he didn't want to die,
he wanted he.
I mean desperately wanted tolive, and even with his having a
terminal illness that wasbrutal, he still lived so hard,

(23:36):
you know, until the very veryend.
And so I think that's also amisunderstanding that a lot of
people have with medical aid anddying, that somebody is going
to get their prescription andthen, you know, the very next
day take it.
And that might be true for somepeople who aren't able to
access the medication until thevery end, but for the majority

(24:00):
of people they hold onto itprovides, you know, this peace
of mind that they know that ifthings get too bad they'll have
this option, but they don't takeit until the very very end,
when they're just in their finaldays of life.

Speaker 1 (24:14):
Yeah, I thought about that with Andrew a lot, because
obviously I saw his conditionjust get worse and worse and I
was like, when will he decide todo 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 dothat?
And one thing I'll say is onething that that the thing I was

(24:35):
surprised about is he waitedbasically till the end.
I mean, like that's the onlyway I can put it to people.
I mean, he, his condition justgot 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 havea will to live and, um, medical

(24:56):
aid and dying is one of thosethings where, again, we have.
Obviously you're a lawyer, youhave to speak about it in like a
certain way, you know, with theother side, but I have not
found a convincing argument oranything like.
Um, you know, especially for,like, for, like people with
cancer.
I mean, I have like a, areligious background too, so I'm
like, oh, maybe you know godwouldn't like it or something
like that, but even then itmakes no sense because you're

(25:18):
gonna uh, because, like hospiceis doing the same thing.
You just get to choose.
And the last thing I'll sayabout Andrew is I know that the
peace of mind it gave him and Ifeel like this peace of mind
word is like so or phrase is soimportant, it's like invaluable.
I mean that can really changeyour mind.
Just a little differentperspective on what you're going

(25:39):
through can really just changeyour life and or the life that
you have left.

Speaker 3 (25:44):
Yeah, I think cancer takes so much from a person and
just dictates so much of theirlife 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 ifthings get too bad, it allows
you to just take a little bitback from cancer, just a little

(26:07):
bit of your autonomy back to beto be able to make that decision
and you know cancer doesn't getto decide right.
Um um, and a lot of people whothere's a lot of people every
year.
You can look in every statethat has passed medical aid in
dying legislation.

(26:28):
They also have annual reportswhere doctors have to report on.
You know who has.
How many people have requestedthe medication, who ultimately
took it.
You know, there's.
These numbers exist in everystate where there's legislation

(26:50):
and there's a sizable number ofpeople every year who get the
prescription and never take itBecause for some people it's
just at the end.
That's not what they want.
They don't, they didn't, they'dsuddenly, you know, make a
different decision, um, andthat's great.
It's great that if this issomething that they had on hand

(27:11):
that made them feel better, thatallowed 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 wereable to make that decision for
themselves.

Speaker 1 (27:26):
Yeah, I think I looked up the statistics and 37%
of people in California thathave the medication don't take
it.
I think most of the people thatdo end up taking it are also
over the age of 80 or something.
But I don't want to get that setwrong um, so yeah, it's uh I

(27:47):
think I feel like there needs tobe some kind of study done on
37 percent of people not takingit.
But I have to say and I'll gomore like into this of later on
it seems like that the statsvary depending on state and like
country uh, canada stats areway crazier than california's
state and like country uh canadastats are way crazier than

(28:07):
california's.
Um, right in california, it'sliterally the most like ideal
model for countries and statesto like follow um.
But one thing just to um, justto talk about this case is this
case uh like um spinal versus uhthe state of california?
Is this like threatening madein californ?
How concerned should we be?
Um, I think it's a lot of BShonestly, like I read it.

(28:27):
Uh, I also want to give a shoutout to uh Susie Flack, who's
part of the amicus brief, and meand Strev.
Both uh like read those storiesand honestly, those stories
really, really like uh captureyou and uh, I mean obviously we
knew Andrew, but there's allthese other stories of like
people whose names I don't haveon hand and their families and

(28:52):
they're just so like touchinghonestly.
And anyways, is Maid in threator is Maid?
Yeah, should we be worriedabout Maid in California?

Speaker 3 (29:03):
I, you know, I think with every legal challenge it's
a threat, there is reason to beconcerned.
I don't how concerned, you know.
How big this threat is is kindof remains to be told.
We were really thankful thatthe trial court dismissed the
case and did not think that theplaintiffs had a viable claim.

(29:26):
But the reality is that wedon't have a very friendly
Supreme Court right now to ourissue area and we would be
worried that if it does go up tothe Supreme Court and I think
that's true of any challenge tomedical aid in dying coming from
any state this case I thinkthat's true of, you know, any
challenge to medical aid indying coming from any state.
You know this case.

(29:47):
I think this case is unique inthat I, while I do not
ultimately agree with plaintiffs, I think it's important to
understand where they're comingfrom.
They have, you know, a verydifferent lived experience than
me.
I don't have a disability and Ihaven't had that experience of

(30:10):
being an individual with adisability in the medical system
.
I think it's true that ourmedical system does not treat
people with disabilities as theyshould.
Obviously, there's a lot offlaws in the American healthcare
system, as they should.
Obviously, there's a lot offlaws in the American healthcare
system.
I think we probably can allagree with that Needs work,
needs, work, and so I think it'sreally important for us as a

(30:32):
movement to understand thesevoices, 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'tobviously want um medical aid in
dying, and that's kind of thewhole point.
And for us we say well, youdon't have to have it.

(30:54):
Um, there are um other end oflife options.
You know.
They argue that they're notaccessible enough, and I think
that's probably true too.
We need to do a better job atmaking sure that individuals at
the end of life um are havingtheir needs met and getting the
exact care that they want.
If they want hospice care, ifthey want, you know, a live in

(31:14):
aid, um, those options need tobe available and they need to be
accessible, like by beingaffordable, you know, and um.
So I think that all of theseare good points.
We don't disagree there, um, wejust ultimately disagree with
whether or not um the thestatute itself is um
discriminating against peoplewith disabilities.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
yeah, um, and it's cool that, like you guys are
showing such compassion to theother side.
I know I said it's bs.
I think obviously, like thelike, the claim is like bs, but
uh mean anyone that's disabled.
You're right, they have theirown lived experience and they
have their own challenges and Idon't want to diminish that
either.

Speaker 3 (31:55):
I think when this case came about, I thought a lot
about a conversation that I hadwith Andrew.
Obviously, we all know Andrewwas a special education teacher
and he worked with kids withdisabilities, and I remember we
had this conversation once.
He called me out of the blue.
I was at a coffee shop.

(32:15):
I just remember being at thecoffee shop and taking this call
from him and he was like I'vebeen thinking about this a lot
and he talked about how, in hiswork, one of the most important
things to guaranteeing successlater for the kids that he
taught was making sure that theyhad autonomy and that they had

(32:36):
a choice and they were able tomake 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 hetalked about how for him it was
just so hard that somebody wastrying to limit his autonomy.
Now, um, and that just it reallystruck me, you know, um, that's

(33:01):
something that he dedicated hislife to, and to me it comes
down to medical aid in dying isan extension of one's autonomy.
It allows a person to make thatchoice if that choice is right
for them.
It also allows them to not makethat choice because it is fully
voluntary and an individual candecide that they don't want

(33:21):
medical aid in dying at anypoint in the process.
So I think that plaintiffs andI just have disagree on what
autonomy means here and whethermedical aid in dying limits or
honors a person's autonomy.
I think that allowing someoneto make that choice at the end

(33:44):
of life honors their autonomy.

Speaker 1 (33:49):
So I wanted to touch on something that you briefly
touched on.
I want to expand on it.
So how does the reversal of Roev Wade affect medical aid in
dying and end-of-life optionsact federally just?

Speaker 3 (34:03):
in general.

Speaker 1 (34:04):
And I guess it's a multi-step question because I
know Neil Gorsuch being on theSupreme Court.
He's written like a lot aboutthis too.

Speaker 3 (34:13):
So anyway, if you want to expand on that, yeah, so
the decision that overturnedRoe v Wade, the Dobbs decision
they actually relied on languagethat came out of a medical aid
in dying case.
So back in the 90s there was acase that went up to the Supreme
Court that was trying toestablish medical aid in dying

(34:36):
as a constitutional right, likeabortion was at that time, and
the court came up with this test, that was the deeply rooted in
the history and traditions ofthe nation test, and said that
medical aid in dying was notdeeply rooted in the history and
traditions of the country andso therefore it is not a

(34:59):
fundamental right that'sprotected by the constitution.
When the justices re-examinedthe abortion right back in a
couple of years back, theydecided that abortion was not
deeply rooted in the history andtraditions of the country.
So the Dobbs decision doesn'treally change anything for

(35:23):
medical aid in dying in thatmedical aid in dying was already
not a fundamental right that'sfederally recognized, but it
does.
It's still worrisome, right,like I mean.
Obviously it's going to limitthe ability for medical aid in

(35:45):
dying to be recognized as afundamental right.
Going forward, you also have toquestion what other fundamental
rights is the court going toexamine, re-examine?
Is the court going to decidethat people actually don't have
a fundamental right to refuselife support at the end of life.
That's been recognized sincethe 90s as well, even the 80s.

(36:09):
I'm really bad with dates today.

Speaker 1 (36:12):
Same.
Yeah, I know I suck with dates.

Speaker 3 (36:16):
I'm getting decades wrong here.
It was either late 80s or early90s the Cruzan case, I think it
was early 90s when it wasultimately decided.
So, yeah, you have to worry andI think that the biggest
concern is just what that caseindicates for just healthcare

(36:37):
autonomy in general.
For just healthcare autonomy ingeneral.
You know the rights, yeah, ofindividuals to make these deeply
personal decisions about whatmedical treatment they do or
don't receive.

Speaker 1 (36:47):
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 indying.
They're in power now andobviously that's going to like
affect things.

Speaker 3 (37:03):
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 amendmentright, a free speech right, and
we know that this court hasreally strongly believes in free
speech rights.
So our opposition knows whatthey're doing.

(37:25):
They're making the argumentsthat they know, are going to
appeal to this current court andthey're trying to get cases in
front of this court.
So, yeah, I do think, to kindof go back to your original
question, I do think thatthere's reason to be worried.
It's not a great time forindividual rights in this
country.
It's not a great great time forhealth care rights in this

(37:48):
country.
We're seeing cases, obviouslyall of the abortion restriction
cases, what they could lead toin terms of contraception and
whatnot, and then also all ofthese limitations on gender
affirming care.
So many states are passing banson gender affirming care,
especially for minors, and so Ithink that there's a lot of

(38:12):
reason to be worried.
West Virginia just passed a lawthat um, I believe a
constitutional um ban on medicalaid and dying oh, they did,
yeah, okay.
So they're like we can't havemedical aid and dying like no
matter what yeah, I think thelanguage of and this is true of,

(38:34):
like most things we see onballots right, they always use
tricky language where itsuggests it's doing something
more limited than it actually is.

Speaker 1 (38:43):
But yeah, that passed in November, that's really
unfortunate for, like peoplethere, I always tell people, and
you know, gender affirming care, not that I'm sure it's like an
important issue for a lot ofpeople, it's like an important
issue for a lot of people, uh,but like I think that the stuff

(39:03):
that we fight for has to be likea winnable um.
I think gender affirming carefor minors is just not, um, like
an issue that was going to bepopular, like anyways, um, but
something like medical aid anddying.
That is just so universal.
And the thing that annoys me ispeople always find out that
it's universal but maybe likelater in life, at the point that

(39:24):
they have an opinion let's saythey're 20s or like 30s or even
40s maybe they haven't seenanyone go through excruciating
pain.
I mean, we're talking aboutlike alleviating the pain of
someone that's dying with likecancer.
Words just don't do it justice,right?
They're going throughexcruciating pain, like shit.
You know, like I get a freakingcold sometimes and I'm like

(39:44):
damn that that that really gotme good.
But this is that like timeslike 100 strive has a cold right
now actually, so shout out tostrive but, um, but you know,
it's like I, I really think it'slike the amount of like there's
there's got to be.
It's like I, I really think it'slike the amount of like there's
there's gotta be.
It's like um wealth in in likewealth, inequality People don't
understand how much like money,um other like really like a

(40:07):
billion dollars is.
What is it Like?
A million dollars is like 32years if you counted, and or
it's like 32 days If you startedlike trying to count or
something.
A billion dollars is like 32years.
I forgot the exact like likeanalogy, but, um, the amount of
pain that people go through, uhis just so like wild and I just
think it can't be measured.

(40:27):
And uh, you're trying toalleviate like the highest
amounts of pain.
That's that's like out thereand 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 biggeruh.

Speaker 3 (40:41):
If like suffering could be measured, it's like the
, it would be like the highestamount you know, or be like the
biggest weight yeah, I mean, Ithink you know death is
universal, like I think thatthere is a lot of pain anytime
somebody can't access the healthcare that they want, whether,
again, it's gender-affirmingcare, abortion care, end-of-life

(41:02):
care.
There's so much harm in notbeing able to access critical
health treatment that you needor want.
But I think how death is uniqueis that everyone is going to
die.
So everyone's going to be atthis moment.
Not everyone's going to die ofcancer, not everyone's going to

(41:24):
die of an excruciating diseaseand you're lucky if you're one
of those people that doesn't buteveryone is going to die.
So we do need to start thinkingabout end-of-life health care
before we're at the end of life.

Speaker 1 (41:36):
Yeah, we need to talk about death Exactly, even like
abortion, which I think is likeis an important issue.
Not everyone really goesthrough that, or they even know
people that go through somethinglike that, like you know.
So, like the actual amount ofpeople that experience that,
like the, the cohort of peopleis a lot smaller, but dying you
would just think it as like thebiggest coalition of people,
because you know it's not likethere's people that have learned

(41:58):
, that have figured out how tolike, like, escape it.

Speaker 3 (42:02):
I mean, I do think, though just to push back a
little bit.

Speaker 1 (42:04):
I do think things like For sure, by the way go,
you should always push back onme.

Speaker 3 (42:09):
We do affect so many more people.
Well, first off, they, they.
There's so many people that arereceiving treatment or have
received treatment we just don'tknow about.
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

(42:33):
your life who need to accessthat option, or people in your
life who have had kids or whohave been pregnant, and even if
that's not a healthcare optionthat you yourself are ever going
to need to exercise like itdoes impact you when those
options are um no longeravailable, because it's it's
impacting people in your lifethat you love um and care about
and you know, you know there's.

(42:54):
It always kind of comes back tous Like we're all so much more
connected than I think we evenrealize.
And so when we see theseprohibitions go up, when we see
affect you and just from like alawyerly standpoint, when we see

(43:20):
these laws getting passed andwhen they go through the court
system and are upheld, they'recreating case law that says it's
okay to remove these sorts ofhealthcare options, it's okay to
prevent doctors from advisingpatients on these things, it's
okay to prevent an individualfrom leaving the state to access

(43:43):
certain healthcare, and even ifthat those cases were about
abortion or gender affirmingcare, they will be applied to
end of life treatment eventually, you know.
So it's all connected and it'sjust a really scary time to see
so many.
I just think that, likeabortion is really misunderstood

(44:21):
by people, even like in popularmedia.

Speaker 1 (44:23):
They talk about these edge cases which are actually
pretty important too, by the waylike rape and stuff like that.
Um, you know, rape of like,like a minor.
But, like I said, if you knowthat someone could have a
miscarriage and because of theseabortion like rulings, they
can't even get a, a pill, uh,for a miscarriage or something
like that, that to me is justlike absurd.

(44:43):
But again, abortion, that's a.

Speaker 3 (44:45):
It's like the topic no one really wants to talk
about too much, it's probablyone of the hardest topics in the
world, uh, but yeah, I don'tlike I like talking about it,
but maybe I'm a minority um, youknow, compassion and choices
obviously doesn't have a stanceum on abortion, you know.
So all of these viewpoints aremy own, but um, you know, but

(45:08):
compassion choices has umwritten amicus briefs in
abortion cases, because they dosee that connection, they do see
see the way that allowingabortion prohibitions and
restrictions can affect end oflife health care, because it's
the same justifications, it'sthe same.
I mean in some cases it'sliterally the same plaintiffs

(45:30):
challenging these different laws.

Speaker 1 (45:33):
There's really one plaintiff.
It seems like doing all this,that's like.
The funniest part is like Ithink it's probably connected to
, like, the Heritage Foundationor the Christian Medical
Association or the CatholicChurch, which are all kind of
like interlinked, or Project2025 even Again, not to get too
political, but it's a lot of thesame people.

Speaker 3 (45:52):
Yeah, it's a lot of the same people, for sure.
It's the same.
We have the same opponents, andso I think it's really
important for us to to to haveone another's backs here and see
the ways that we are connected,even you know, again, even if
it's different folks who areultimately going to be accessing

(46:13):
these health care options.
It's just important to see theway that we're all connected and
then defend these rights.
We just submitted an amicusbrief in a Montana case about
gender affirming care.
Montana has passed a ban ongender affirming care.
That is being challenged, andCompassion and Choices submitted

(46:35):
a brief kind of talking aboutthis.
What, even though this case isabout gender affirming care,
about the rights of minors toget these health care options,
limit Montana's recognition of,like the, their constitutional

(46:57):
privacy rights, which has beenextended to medical decision
making, and so limiting it inthis way that could definitely
limit end of life care as well.

Speaker 1 (47:09):
So, ok, I guess it's my, it's my time to push back.
So, politically again, I'm justthinking about this like
straight up politics what couldhappen?
Politically again, I'm justthinking 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 Idon't know what the number was,
but it was like $100 or $200million on that one ad where

(47:30):
Kamala is like she's for they,them, I'm for you, or something
like that, and I think she votedfor.
This was just something she dida while ago too, but not that
I'm a Kamala fan, but it wasthat she supported
gender-affirming care for peoplein prison.
They just ran that ad again andagain and, to be real, it was

(47:50):
effective.
Even I was like huh, really.
But I do worry whenorganizations like Compassion
and Choices.
But I do.
I do worry when organizationslike Compassionate Choices,
gender affirming care for minors, and like MAID.
I could totally see how they'reall interlinked because, you
know, freedom is freedom, butwhen it comes to minors, I don't

(48:12):
know if this is a good issuefor organizations like you guys
to get involved in, just becauseof the pushback, because of,
like more of the overall mission.
What's right and wrong?
Honestly, I'm not informedenough.
I, if I, if I could be realabout it, I'm probably like more
against that.
You know most people, I knowalmost everybody, I know, if you
just mentioned that, andthey're probably not super
educated.
I know that medicalorganizations do support it.
So there's it's morecomplicated than than my

(48:35):
understanding.

Speaker 3 (48:43):
But I just think it's like a losing issue for if
we're trying to get madefederally legal.
So to be really clear,compassion and Choices did not
and does not have a stance ongender affirming care for anyone
, because it's just not ourissue area.
But why we entered an amicusbrief in that case is because
Montana has this constitutionalprivacy right that has been
interpreted very broadly toextend to medical decision

(49:05):
making.
Oh, ok, so it allowsindividuals to make these like
deeply personal decisions aboutwhat treatment they do and don't
receive, and the plaintiffs inthis case are saying that this
extends to gender affirming care.
We know from past case law thatit also extends to end of life

(49:26):
care, and so you have to kind oflook beyond the discrete issue
to figure out the broader effect.
So, if we allow thisconstitutional right to be
limited because we don'tnecessarily agree with what kind
of care people are going to getin one discrete place.

(49:48):
I personally think individualsshould be able to get gender
affirming care.

Speaker 1 (49:54):
Cool and, by the way, I appreciate that you're just
open about it too.

Speaker 3 (49:57):
Yeah, and then that's my personal view.
It's again not a compassionchoices does not have a view on
this, but that's my personalview.
I think people should be able toaccess the health care that
they want.
But you know, even if I were todisagree with it by letting
this constitutional right belimited just because I don't
like one certain kind of carethat somebody else was going to

(50:19):
get, it's going to have a broadeffect.
It was going to limit then thekind of healthcare options I do
want.
And so you just have to think,like, ultimately, it's not up to
the state to decide whattreatment you should or
shouldn't get.
So it you know if, even ifsomebody else disagrees with it
and this is the same argumentthat we're having in, like CMDA,

(50:40):
vibhanta and all of these othercases just because these
individual doctors disagree withit, just because these
individual people don't wantthis option, doesn't mean you
should limit somebody else fromdoing it if that's the option
that they want.
So I think it's just healthcareis such a personal decision and
what we'd want for ourselvesand what we wouldn't want for

(51:00):
ourselves shouldn't affect whatsomebody else can have yeah, I
do uh like agree with that.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
Freedom is really complicated, folks.
The the thing is, it's reallynot just about what you want for
yourself, it's what you'llallow for like others, which is
where freedom of speech isreally important too.
It's like, yeah, obviously Iwant freedom of speech for what
I want to say, but what aboutwhat other people say, shit you
don't like?
I did want to touch also on theIllinois bill.

(51:27):
Again, our very own Susie Flackwas in the news there.
I don't know if you saw thatclip or we're super proud of her
.
She's been doing some greatadvocacy work and there's a bill
being introduced I can'tbelieve it in the state of
Illinois.
Do you know much about that, orcan you speak to it?

Speaker 3 (51:46):
I don't.
So I know that it exists.
I know Susie's doing such greatwork, she's such an inspiration
to just like how much she hasdone for this movement.
You know how much she has doneum for this movement.
You know um to carry onAndrew's legacy, um.
So I know probably as much asyou know, maybe even less than
you know, um, um, but I havelike I've I've looked into it

(52:12):
and I have a personal interest,obviously, um in seeing it
passed.
But I don't work on umlegislation at all.
I only do court cases, um.

Speaker 1 (52:18):
So I so you know, I know what my colleagues are
working on, um oh yeah, you'reactually in like the weeds of
the court cases, um yeah but Idon't have like any special um
knowledge here anything moreagain, I think probably yeah
well, we'll just tell theaudience that, like, basically,
uh, what suzy has been doing isshe's been meeting with

(52:38):
lawmakers and talking aboutAndrew's story and I think that
they did introduce a bill inIllinois.
I'm not sure if it has votes topass or anything like that or
if it's at that stage, but evenseeing bills introduced I think
is a positive sign and she'sdone a great job of just raising
awareness.
My other question was moreglobal.

(53:01):
So I feel like we touched onlike the local, like events.
So medical aid in dying, or Ithink I don't know what they're
calling in the UK.
I try not to use the wordassisted suicide, but I think in
the UK they're calling it likeassisted suicide and that bill
has passed in the UK now, whichis actually a big deal, because

(53:22):
I think they didn't expect it topass when it first got like
introduced.
But, yeah, medical aid in dyingor an end of life like option
act might be a thing in like theUK.
Did you get?
Did you get?
Do you have any like thoughtson that?
Anything that you want to share.

Speaker 3 (53:42):
I've seen the headlines in the news.
I'm not.
I haven't like read the actualtext of the bill.
My hope is that it follows theAmerican model, with all of its
rigorous safeguards andlimitations.
That it follows the Americanmodel rather than like the
Canadian model or what we'reseeing in other European

(54:03):
countries.

Speaker 1 (54:04):
Yeah, it does, I think.

Speaker 3 (54:06):
I think it does.

Speaker 1 (54:07):
I think it follows the California model.
Like you need to, you have tosee two doctors, there's a
waiting period and you have toeven have a judge say yes, but
something like that.

Speaker 3 (54:16):
The six months or less to live.

Speaker 1 (54:18):
Yeah yeah, six months , or yeah, like a terminal
diagnosis?

Speaker 3 (54:22):
Yeah, I mean I think that those are really critical
safeguards to making sure thatreally only individuals who are
dying at the end of life areable to access it, and not folks
with chronic conditions who dohave treatment options available
that might be able to managethose conditions.

(54:43):
I think that's really important.

Speaker 1 (54:47):
So Canada, I have to.
So I sent this stat to Strebyesterday.
So Canada and California arecompared a lot as far as like
medically and dying goes,because they'd be both um
legalized in 2016.
Since 2016 to through 2021, 31664 canadians have died under

(55:12):
made, uh or like trying to usemade, compared to only 3,344 in
California.
So what, that's like 10% Uh.
So in Canada a lot more peopleare taking it.
Canada's criticized a lot.
Actually, um, I think that it'sjust more like expansive.
It's not just about cancer,like, either.
I might be uh, again that partwrong, but Canada doesn't seem

(55:34):
to be like a model um thatpeople that I don't know.
It doesn't seem to be like amodel that people that I don't
know.
It doesn't seem to be like agood model because almost the
numbers are too high, because Ican't think Canada has like 40
million.
California has 40 millionpeople.
They're both.
They both speak English, soit's very like comparable.
You know, and I was trying tofigure out why that is.
The theory seems to be that alot more people just know about

(55:56):
it.
In Canada there's moreawareness where a doctor will
tell you.
In California it's like youhave to ask the doctor what
options do I have In Canada?
They just tell you.
I don't know what the rightanswer is there, but it seems
like California is doingsomething right, so some people
might argue wrong.
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (56:14):
I think that Canada also has broader eligibility.
So, I think it's not just folkswith six months or less to live
, and I think they also extendit to folks that have like
mental conditions.

Speaker 1 (56:30):
Yeah, that's where it gets hairy.

Speaker 3 (56:32):
Yeah, yeah, obviously , that is not the model that
Compassion and Choices advocatesfor.
It's not one that I personallywould want to see.
I don't think we will see theCanadian model in the United
States.
I think that there's a reasonwhy we have those again, that

(56:57):
this is really an option forpeople who are going to die and
just want to avoid some of thatreally, really awful, terrible
pain at the very end, and that'sthat's why that's what we
advocate for, you know.

Speaker 1 (57:13):
Yeah, most people in California, I think, that have
taken made, have cancer or likeALS or something like that.
That is just you know severe.

Speaker 3 (57:21):
Yeah, in the annual reports, the breakdown of what
folks have, and I thinkoverwhelmingly it's cancer,
followed by I think you're rightneurodegenerative diseases.

Speaker 1 (57:32):
Yeah, yeah, neurodegenerative, that's a good
word, degenerative, that's agood word.
But yeah, the Canadian modelhas me worried.
But in general, I also thinkthere's this lack of awareness.
I've talked about this on otherpodcasts.
But I watched a news story, Iwatched a show called Breaking
Points and because of the UKbill, they covered a medical aid

(57:54):
in dying.
There's a left view and a rightview, which is stupid.
A medical aid in dying there'sa left view and, like, a right
view, which is stupid.
Sometimes you just have oneview, that's all there is.
But they were talking about,like Oregon and stuff.
But I feel like a lot of peoplein the US, especially in the
East Coast, midwest states thatdon't have it, don't realize
that California, one of thepowerhouse state of the US, I

(58:16):
would say, allows medical aid indying.
They weren't aware in their ownnews coverage and these are,
you know, people that cover thenews.
It's just.
And then again, I've talked todoctors I've talked to, like
other people.
People are just not as aware ofthe fact that medical aid in
dying is allowed in Californiaas you would think it's kind of
strange almost like you wouldthink something like that would

(58:36):
just be so you know people wouldjust know about it.

Speaker 3 (58:43):
I think you know people don't think about death,
so they're not thinking aboutwhat options are available.
You know, yeah, time I, thiscountry.
It's just.
Death is such a taboo subject.
People don't like to talk aboutit.
They don't like to think aboutit.
I get it, I don't.
You know, I don't always liketo think about it and talk about
it.
I mean it's, yeah, it's, it'sdeath is kind of a bummer, it's
definitely a downer.

(59:05):
You know it's hard and peopleit'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 lotbetter talking about it because
I get paid to, it's my job, butit is just something that's

(59:28):
really hard.
So I think that people aren'tagain, people aren't thinking
that they'll ever need thisoption.
It's just not kind of enteringinto their minds as a
possibility.
I don't think most of us havethought about what healthcare

(59:49):
would we want at the end of lifeIf we were in a terrible car
accident and couldn't speak forourselves, we were in a
persistent vegetative state orsomething you know?
Would our family know what wewant?
Do we have documents in place?
I know, yeah, that's so true,so many people don't.

Speaker 1 (01:00:03):
they don't have like yeah, I mean like a DNR, what
like?
What the hell would you want?

Speaker 3 (01:00:08):
You think about those things.
You know like we'll have time,but we don't need those now.
Those are for older people, butthe reality is we can get sick
at any time, we can have anaccident at any time.
It's scary, and I think likeit's scary, right.
So people just don't want tothink about it and by, like
having to have thoseconversations and filling out

(01:00:29):
those forms, we're forced tothink about it.
We're forced to like accept andconfront our mortality, and
that is not a pleasant thing,and so we avoid it, and so I
think Someone will die.

Speaker 2 (01:00:41):
What.

Speaker 3 (01:00:42):
Yeah, so I think I mean that's part of it, right.
It's just that people don'tthink about it, you know, and
then yeah it's.
I think Compassion and Choiceshas been doing a lot of
education to ensure that morepeople are aware of this option
and to make people morecomfortable talking about issues
about death and dying, butobviously we have a long way to

(01:01:06):
go.

Speaker 1 (01:01:07):
Yeah, I think that California has.
I don't know if it'sintentional or not, but they
just they have struck the rightbalance because it's like you
ask for it, then it's there, butit's not being pushed on you.
You know what I mean.
It's kind of like seems likethe 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 notlike telling you about the

(01:01:28):
option before you ask for itAgain.
I don't know what the right wayto do it is, but I feel like
there's something.
It seems like the rightapproach.
So let's zoom in for a secondand before we close this out, I
would like to just ask you whatis it?
You know you often work withpeople who are near the end of
their life.
What is that like for you?
You know, on a personal level.

Speaker 3 (01:01:50):
Yeah, it's hard.
It's hard.
I mean, I think in doing thiswork, I try, I try really hard
not, you know, I don't to centermyself.
It's it's not about me, it'sabout other people, um, but I
also can't deny the fact that itdoes affect me.
It is really hard.

(01:02:10):
Andrew's death was really hard.
Um, I got so close to him withworking with him and it was
husband you and I talked aboutthis after Andrew passed.
But it was especially hardbecause I was like, well, I'm
just his lawyer Like I have tohave this awareness of, like,
who I was in his life and likethere's so many people who knew

(01:02:35):
him so much better than me, um,longer than me, you know, and so
there's like I felt almost likeselfish in in grieving, like
who am I to grieve when there'sso many people who are hurting
so much more than me?
Um, but then invalidating whatI'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 toto process this again.

(01:02:59):
Like I'm just the lawyer, butI'm also a lawyer who's doing
this work because I care deeplyabout these people.
And so, yeah, when a clientpasses away, it's hard.
These people, um, and so, yeah,when a client passes away, it's
hard, um, and you just have totake time for yourself.
Um, yeah, just have to taketime, it's.

(01:03:26):
I'm trying to remember when Igot the news that Andrew had
passed away, uh, me and anothercolleague who was really close
with him, megan, who was also onthe podcast before.
You know, she and I weretexting and talking and I think
we just ordered like pizza andjunk food and just did stuff
that made us really happy.
Like we listened to musicreally loud and I painted and it

(01:03:49):
was just like we were like I, Ithink andrew would like the way
that we're processing this.
It was like we're eating a lotof like yeah, pizza and just
yeah, listening to great music,um, um, and just kind of finding
like happiness and connectioneven in that really, really sad
moment yeah, I'll speak to thattoo.

Speaker 1 (01:04:11):
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'mlike man, I actually haven't
known him that long.
In the grand scale of things, Iwas like these people are going
through something.
You know my, you know I.
I kind of felt like uh, whatyou like described.

(01:04:31):
I was like you people are goingthrough something.
You know my, you know I kind offelt like, uh, what you like
described.
I was like you know who the hellam I to even like grieve about
this, what these people havelost, you know this uh force in
their life.
Um, you know, I felt likeguilty, almost like you know,
having that, like having himbeing be that like important
like in my life.
But, yeah, I think I learnedthrough you and through like

(01:04:51):
talking like other people andthrough 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 overto strev, like andrew used to
do to me.
But before I get to that, whatis your favorite type of pizza?

(01:05:15):
Um?

Speaker 3 (01:05:18):
I think I don't.
I don't think andrew's gonnalike my answer.
I kind of like bougie pizza andit's.
I definitely don't like deepdish and I'm sorry okay um, I
like a bougie pizza, I like,like a, like you know what is it

(01:05:38):
?
The, the, the Napoli style, Idon't know, like the really thin
crust with like the bubbles andthe charge, and like the like.
Neapolitan.
Yeah, yeah, my brain.
I was like I kept on going.
Napoleon, I was like that's notright, it's not Napoleon pizza.
I don't think the French makegood pizza, but yeah.

(01:05:59):
So I think I like a bougiepizza, but if I'm getting like
an every man's pizza, it's goingto be New York style.
I'm sorry, do I have to leavethe podcast now?

Speaker 1 (01:06:13):
Soon, soon.
No, that's acceptable.
What toppings though?
Yeah, toppings though.

Speaker 3 (01:06:18):
Okay, you guys really are going to kick me out.
I eat a weird pizza.
So if it's like the Neapolitanstyle.
I'm probably going to do like amargarita or something like
that, I don't know, maybe a guacor something like that, I don't
know, maybe a quachey famagy, Idon't know.

(01:06:42):
But if I'm doing greasy pizza Iknow it's bad, but I really
like pineapple and jalapenos andsometimes I even put olives on
it I eat still like I'm pregnant, I don't know what to say,
pineapple has actually grown onme.

Speaker 1 (01:07:04):
It sounds fun.
Yeah, I just want to do that.
When we go get pizza we getsome tavern style, which is that
thin crust pizza.
So locals in Chicago actuallylike thin crust.
You can't eat deep dish all thetime, but you can eat.

Speaker 3 (01:07:16):
You can't eat it all the time.
I mean, first of all, it takesforever to make.

Speaker 1 (01:07:21):
Like.

Speaker 3 (01:07:21):
I used to work at a pizza shop when I was in high
school and people would order itand it takes so long to make
and also it's like pizza lasagna.
I don't know, I don't know, Idon't like it.

Speaker 1 (01:07:32):
I get it.
I get it, but the tavern styleyou can't hate on that.

Speaker 2 (01:07:39):
But anyway, strev, you got anything for us?
Yeah, so I had.
A lot of my questions wereanswered, so thank you for that.
But I did have one question.
That kind of circles back tothe Canada, the Canada method,

(01:08:04):
where you know a lot of theseopponents of MAID are, have this
slippery slope argument wherethey kind of think that these
safeguards are going to justfall out, or the snowball effect
that will go the direction ofCanada.
Or worse, they even say, likeif we let made laws go into
effect then B will happen, andif B happens and C will happen,
and so on and so forth, and thenthey go gosh, and what if B

(01:08:25):
happens, you know?
But I guess my question for youis well, it just seems kind of
like a hypothetical philosophymore than an actual legal
argument.
Does this argument actuallyhave any weight in the legal
system and in courts?

Speaker 3 (01:08:42):
I don't think so.
No, I mean, first off, theslippery slope arguments are
incorrect in the United States.
Arguments are incorrect in theUnited States, like these laws
have been on the books since themid nineties and we haven't
seen any of these slippery slopefears happen in the United
States.
And Compassionate Choices,which is like the leading voice

(01:09:04):
in this movement, always isadvocating for these safeguards
to be in place.
And so I think we're not seeingthe slippery slope arguments
play out first and foremost Incourt.
When you have these superhypothetical arguments that the
folks are kind of relying theircase on, that's not an actual

(01:09:25):
issue or controversy before thecourt, and so oftentimes the
courts find that the plaintiffsdon't actually have standing.
You have to have like an actualharm of something that has
actually happened, not somethingthat your fear is going to
happen.
You know it has to be somethingthat is reasonably imminent and
likely to happen, so or alreadyhas happened.

(01:09:48):
So we have had um cases where,yeah, they're just slippery
slope after slippery slopeargument and the court is like
this isn't actually what'shappening, um, and there's no,
because it's not actuallyhappening, uh, there's no harm.

(01:10:09):
Um.
We do see a lot of cases kindof get dismissed on that those
grounds.

Speaker 2 (01:10:14):
That's good to hear, because that's just, that was
always an argument that justkind 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 (01:10:27):
You know, I'm not a legal professional, but it seems
like everything should be doneincrementally, if that makes
sense, and that's just kind oflike skipping over things and
kind of being careless andultimately I mean ultimately,
the place for those slipperyslope arguments and to figure
out the right solutions and toprevent those slippery slopes

(01:10:48):
from being realized is in thelegislature, not the courts.
You know, there, you, if you'reworried about X, y and Z, then
talk about it when you know, atthe legislative level, put in
more safeguards, or when a billis going to be passed, you know,
make your arguments there.
That's, that's the proper form,because they're, ultimately,

(01:11:08):
they're just policyconsiderations.

Speaker 1 (01:11:11):
Um, they're not actual legal harms um, I got one
more question actually.
Um, uh, hopefully you're nottoo low on time, but you know,
like uh the, uh the posture oflike compassion, like in choices
.
That's something I've been uhthinking like a lot about.
So, like when you had adifferent supreme court, you

(01:11:32):
know, uh, when, um, and you hada different uh government in
place, you guys might beadvocating for stuff.
Well, now you might be morelike in the defensive, like
posture.
Can you like talk about how youguys have changed as like an
organization with the newclimate that you're in you?

Speaker 3 (01:11:50):
know, I think we've always, we've always done both,
even when the courts werefriendlier, even when the
political landscape was wasfriendlier, I think we've always
been advocating for the passageof medical aid and dying and
other end of life options on astate level and then having
these kind of defensive lawsuitswhere, you know, even even in

(01:12:15):
when the courts were friendlierand again the political
landscape was friendlier, wewould still see legal challenges
to medical aid and dying lawswhenever, wherever they were
passed.
So I think you know,unfortunately, like I don't see
an end to defending againstthose kinds of lawsuits, I think
they're going to continue for awhile.

(01:12:35):
But we're, and even now, whenthings are a little bit scarier,
we're still, we're stillworking on at the state level to
get these laws passed and thenalso working at both the state
and federal level to make surethat, yeah, folks have have are
able to access whatevertreatment option they want.

(01:12:56):
You know we talk a lot withCompassion Choices, we talk a
lot about medical aid in dying,but that might not be the right
option for a person.
They might not be eligible forit because, you know, if you
like, for instance, have, likedementia, you're not going to be
a candidate for medical aid indying.
So we want to have the widestrange of end of life options

(01:13:19):
available to make sure that aperson can see everything that's
available and figure out whatis right for them, because,
again, it's not always going tobe medical aid in dying.
A person also might just youknow, that just might not be the
way they want to, that justmight not be the way they want
want to, to, um, that just mightnot be the right option for
them.
So I don't know.
Um, I kind of lost my train ofthought there no, I mean, that's

(01:13:43):
actually super interesting.

Speaker 1 (01:13:44):
Uh, strive you, strive, you got anything else
else I do not.

Speaker 2 (01:13:52):
Just thanks for being my friend's lawyer.
No, it really is a commendableand noble thing that you're
doing here and putting youremotions on the line, like we
said, and thanks for all that.

Speaker 3 (01:14:08):
Yeah, I'm just.
I feel so lucky to have knownAndrew, 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 nineat night about Tom Petty.

Speaker 1 (01:14:21):
So you're a Tom Petty fan, nice.

Speaker 3 (01:14:24):
I don't even know how we got on the topic of Tom
Petty, but I remember cookingone day and I'm just like
texting Andrew about Tom Petty.
He told me he went to theconcert.

Speaker 1 (01:14:32):
remember cooking one day and I'm just like texting
andrew about tom petty becausehe told me he went to the
concert.
Yeah, so one of the coolestthings that uh, the concerts
that I went to like andrew withis we got to see tom petty, uh,
me and andrew, um, basicallylike a month before he passed
maybe two, three weeks.
It was one of the one of hisfinal shows.
That was my first tom pettyshow, my kind of introduction to
tom petty.
I'm a big, big fan now.

Speaker 3 (01:14:51):
But yeah, andrew was, every time I think of Tom Petty
it's always, uh, I always thinkof like Andrew yeah, but yeah,
I mean I just I learned, Ilearned so much from Andrew and,
like he, I, he has had suchlike an ongoing impact to so
many people and I think you knowwe were talking earlier about
like feeling like our grief wasselfish.

(01:15:12):
Like who am I to be so sad?
I think that just also goes toshow like how special Andrew was
that even like his lawyer youknow, even these people that he
might have only talked to onceor twice were so like
heartbroken by his passing andso affected by his life and he
just he lived such a great lifeand he was such a good example

(01:15:37):
of how to live your life.
He was a great person and Ithink I see his effect carried
on so much through his friendsand even within the organization
.
I mean, people still talk abouthim.
He was just really, reallyspecial and so I just feel lucky
to have been able to get asclose to him as I was and just

(01:15:59):
to be able to work with him onsomething that was so meaningful
and like also, what anincredible person to be dying
and decide that you want to bein 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, andyet he still wanted to dedicate
his time to it.

(01:16:19):
I just he was just such aexample of selflessness, just a
really, really good person whothought about others so much,
and I don't know, I think that'sevident in so many areas of his
life.
So I just feel really lucky tohave known him and then to get
to continue to get to know himthrough his like loved ones, who

(01:16:41):
I am now, you know, thankful toknow as well.

Speaker 1 (01:16:45):
Yeah for sure, right back at you.
He just had uh ability to justacquire cool people in the world
.
Um, a lot of my um friends thatI hang out with uh nowadays, um
in in in california, areactually you know, they're
friends of his that became uhfriends of mine after, uh you

(01:17:06):
know, he passed and he has areally unique set of friends and
like people that he elected uhlike I say, in life, and they're
all just really cool, kind, uhcompassionate people and you
know like we me and him talkedabout this a lot, I think well,
he never said this straight up,but you know this, this my uh
this is me speculating, but Ireally wanted to be like a force

(01:17:29):
for good, like he realized whatwas happening to him and he
could channel that energywhichever way.
And you know I've seen himtrust me that that like sickness
, it was tough, it's one of thetoughest things I've ever seen
someone go, probably thetoughest thing I've seen uh, uh
someone go through I I alwaystell the story like one of the
worst things I saw was one ofthe feats of strength like I saw

(01:17:52):
was he actually uh, streb meantlike a lot to like andrew and
their friendship was so cool.
They're just so goofy and likefunny.
Some of the like one of thecoolest uh friendships like I've
ever seen and streb was gettingmarried.
Like what was it?
August 2021?

Speaker 2 (01:18:06):
uh september.

Speaker 1 (01:18:08):
Okay, so september and andrew was in bad condition
at that time, um, but uh, weboth were like obviously like
invited, so we decided to go.
He struggled on the plane.
Um, the way it was really hotduring, like, the wedding.
Uh, the sun was just blastingon.
It was brutal, it was brutal,like he was already going
through a tough time and hetoughed it out.

(01:18:29):
He never complained.
Honestly, that wedding was somuch fun because, uh, we just
got to hang out and chill and uh, he, he went through all that
just because he thought it waslike the thing to do.
You know, he just.
And then we, we all drawstrength 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

(01:18:52):
help in my like everyday lifetoo.
Every anytime I'm down or youknow, maybe I'm working out or
something or you know, goingthrough something, you know you
think of Andrew and it does giveyou strength because, uh, you
know, a lot of that is likemental, and to be able to see
someone go through it uh wasjust like incredible and the

(01:19:15):
fact that he wanted to be thatperson for us is such a blessing
.

Speaker 2 (01:19:17):
He could have taken it in any other way.
Yeah, just such a highlyempathetic individual.
I'll never forget that he madeit out there for that.
Actually, it was just twomonths before he passed away.
It just makes it incredibleWait so wasn't that 2022, then
Strev?
Yes, that was 2022.

Speaker 1 (01:19:36):
Okay, oh, so wait.
Your wedding was two monthsbefore he passed.

Speaker 2 (01:19:42):
A little over two months before.
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:19:43):
Wow, that just timeline is wild actually then.

Speaker 2 (01:19:47):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:19:48):
So that's when he was really.

Speaker 2 (01:19:49):
So that just gives us a show, how crazy it was.
I mean his resilience is insaneactually.

Speaker 1 (01:19:55):
Yeah, it's actually pretty insane.
You know Strev, he's a marathonrunner now, like I can say that
and we'll talk every now andthen.
And yeah, I think to havesomething like that, to have
someone like that to give agroup of people inspiration, I
think that the effects of thepositivity that he put out into

(01:20:16):
our worlds anyways is likeincredible.
I think I would be a way morecynical human being if I hadn't
met Andrew.
You know, you see so much shitin the world.
There's so many reasons todoubt other people and all these
things.
But yeah, like I always, likeespecially I've been in the
business world.
You know, I've gone throughsome shit there and the scene

(01:20:39):
like kind of the dark side ofpeople, but like Andrew was that
story just that person whoshowed like it doesn't have to
be that way.
There are people that to theend there, that's just who they
are and it's uh, it's amazing tohave to have known, have known
people like that.

Speaker 3 (01:20:58):
Was it your bachelor party that you played golf at?

Speaker 2 (01:21:02):
Yeah, we did the bachelor party out in Oceanside.

Speaker 3 (01:21:09):
He was telling me about that and I didn't realize
it was you until just now.
But he was telling me aboutthat and I't realize it was you
until just now, but he wastelling me about that and I told
him.
So I played um field hockeygrowing up and so I told him
that I can't golf because I Ihit 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 hetold me he was gonna um, he was

(01:21:29):
gonna hit some balls like happyGilmore.
So I don't know, I didn't get tosee it.
I don't know if he actually did, but he told me he was going to
.

Speaker 1 (01:21:35):
So please, if he didn't, don't that's a good
memory in my head um, that I'vecreated so.

Speaker 3 (01:21:42):
But yeah, I didn't.
I didn't realize that was youuntil just now.
That's awesome.
I remember he talked a lotabout you and now it's all kind
of clicking yeah, that bachelorbachelor party was uh was
special also yeah, that was fun.

Speaker 1 (01:21:56):
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 happenedin like the blink of an eye, huh
I was like yeah, so that waslike june of that year or
something like that.

Speaker 2 (01:22:11):
It's definitely not something I think about as the
quintessential bachelor party.
Obviously, we went to Oceansidefor a reason you know, and just
hanging out with Andrew andhaving everyone there was just
special in its own right.
But yeah, good times.

Speaker 1 (01:22:32):
Yeah, it's cool to reflect.
I can't believe it, but it'sbeen over two years now since
Andrew's passed.
And, jess, thanks for being thefirst person, because now it's
the end of the podcast, so we'redone with all the legislative
and more deeper questions.
But, yeah, thanks for being onhere because I've been really
wanting to get back to recordsome episodes.

(01:22:52):
I've been like who should Iinterview?
And uh, who like who should wetalk to?
And there was all these people,but it seemed like, like, like
it was bound to be you and Ilike I think, um, yeah, I think,
and it made perfect sense too.
And uh, yeah, thanks for beingour first, you know podcast
guest with me and Strev at thehelm.

Speaker 3 (01:23:13):
Yeah, well, you guys are my first ever podcast.

Speaker 1 (01:23:17):
Oh, wow, nice Okay.

Speaker 3 (01:23:19):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:23:21):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:23:22):
Well, hopefully you had fun.
We'll close this out and wejust thank you for being here.
We love Compassion and Choices.
I think it's a greatorganization.
I haven't really encountered anorganization like them before
and hopefully people enjoy thisepisode, because I definitely
did.
Thank you guys, thank you, takecare everybody.

(01:23:56):
Thank you.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Cold Case Files: Miami

24/7 News: The Latest

Crime Junkie

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Episode 24 with Jess Pezley

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Cold Case Files: Miami

24/7 News: The Latest

Crime Junkie

All Episodes

Episode 24 with Jess Pezley

Cold Case Files: Miami