Assisted Suicide Proponents Wilt After Tough Questioning by Committee

 http://stopassistedsuicidemd.org/assisted-suicide-proponents-wilt-after-tough-questioning-by-committee/

From Stop Assisted Suicide Maryland

Margaret Dore, Esq.

Posted on February 26, 2016

(Annopolis MD) Proponents of physician-assisted suicide struggled to answer the tough questions thrown at them at yesterday’s Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee hearing on SB 418. The Committee met late into the night with Senators raising significant concerns with the bill and its lack of protections.

The message from proponents, led by national group Compassion & Choices, was that any protections in the law would stall a patient’s ability to get a lethal prescription from their physician. And questions surrounding these increased protections continuously baffled witnesses. There is nothing in this bill that would require a mental health screening, or ensure a physician is present at the time the lethal dose is taken. Proponents’ response to these concerns is that the Maryland healthcare system can’t support these types of mandates.  This is a weak excuse when it comes to protecting our most vulnerable populations who will be at risk if this bill is passed.

In fact, across the board proponents neglect to mention the issues in this legislation that would put our most vulnerable populations at risk. One witness in support of the bill, even referred to the disabled community’s concerns surrounding abuse and coercion of the vulnerable as irresponsible. ... This is a community that has consistently faced discrimination in healthcare laws. To not consider the threat to this community is irresponsible.

Powerful testimony was presented by an elder law attorney [Margaret Dore] who raised the significant potential for elder abuse surrounding this legislation.* She stated that in her experience, it is very common that family members are coercing elderly relatives for financial reasons. In confusing answers, proponents pushed back against protections that would disqualify witnesses who would benefit financially from a death, using the unacceptable excuse that it would leave family out of this process.

The Senate Committee brought some important questions to the table and it was clear that proponents were not prepared to answer. Maybe it’s because they know the physician assisted suicide bill in Maryland is indefensible.   

* To view Ms. Dore's written testimony, please see memo here; click here for the appendix. 

Maryland senator withdraws assisted suicide/euthanasia bill

http://wtop.com/maryland/2016/03/maryland-right-to-die-measure-could-have-committee-vote/

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — A Maryland senator has withdrawn a measure to allow terminally ill residents to legally end their lives with drugs prescribed by a doctor.

[The bill, SB 418, would have legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined]*

Sen. Ron Young, a Frederick County Democrat, said he withdrew the bill Thursday, when it became clear the measure did not have the votes in committee....

The bill stalled last year, but supporters hoped adding some safeguards would help.

Young says he doubts he will try again next year, because he says committee opponents are “just totally inflexible on it.” Opponents cited concerns that vulnerable people like the developmentally disabled could be pressured to end their lives.

*  See memo, pp. 1, 8-10; click here for the appendix. 

Breaking News: Nebraska Bill Voted Down!

A Nebraska Senator just wrote me:

Dear Ms. Dore,

Thank you for sharing your concerns with LB1056. The Judiciary Committee voted against letting this bill out of committee this afternoon.

Dore Opposition to Nebraska Bill Seeking to Legalize Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

Dear Senator Seiler and Members of the Judiciary Committee,

The Introducer's Statement of Intent says that the bill is intended for dying people "when death is certain and imminent." This is not true. The bill, in fact, applies to people with years, even decades, to live. Please see the memo at this link: https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/nebraska-partial-memo-years-to-live.pdf

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank you.

Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA
Law Offices of Margaret K. Dore, P.S.
Choice is an Illusion, a nonprofit corporation
www.margaretdore.com
www.choiceillusion.org
1001 4th Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98154

Don't pretend it's not assisted suicide - at least

Editorial Board:
The bill "is a huge jump ...
setting up a system whose
abuse could literally mean
murder."                       

http://nypost.com/2016/02/15/dont-pretend-its-not-assisted-suicide-at-least/

Deceptive names for legislation are nothing new, but this takes the cake.

Introduced by Democrat Amy Paulin in the Assembly and Republican John Bonacic in the state Senate, the bill would make it easier for terminal New York patients to get doctors to give them fatal doses of drugs.

They call it an “aid in dying” bill, but “Assisted Suicide Enhancement Act” is more to the point.

Or “The Streamlining Euthanasia Act.”

Colorado Assisted Suicide Bills Are a Recipe for Elder Abuse

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dore: "Even if you like the concept of assisted suicide and euthanasia, the proposed Colorado bills have it all wrong."

Contact: Margaret Dore (206) 697-1217

Denver, CO  --  Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought assisted suicide legalization efforts in many states and now Colorado, made the following statement in connection with legislative hearings being held today and tomorrow on bills seeking to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in that state. 

"The bills, SB 16-025 and HB 16-1054, seek to legalize physician-assisted suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined," said Dore. "The bills are described as 'aid in dying,' but their reach is not limited to dying people. 'Eligible' persons may have years, even decades, to live."

Dore said, "The bills are a recipe for elder abuse. The patient's heir, who will financially benefit from the patient's death, is allowed to actively participate in signing the patient up for the lethal dose. There is no oversight over administration."  Dore elaborated, "No doctor, not even a witness, is required to be present at the death. Even if the patient struggled, who would know? The bills create the perfect crime." 

"It gets worse," said Dore.  "The bills require the death certificate to be falsified to reflect a death by a terminal illness.  The significance is a loss of transparency as to the true cause of death and an inability to prosecute in the case of an outright murder for the money; the death, as a matter of law is a terminal illness."  

The Colorado bills seek to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia for people who are "terminal," which is defined as a doctor's prediction of less than six months to live. In real life, such persons can have years, even decades, to live.

"Doctors can be wrong about life expectancy, sometimes way wrong," Dore said. "This is due to actual mistakes: They evaluated another patient's test results. More typically, however, doctors are wrong because predicting life expectancy is not an exact science. A few years ago, I was met at the airport by a man who at age 18 had been diagnosed with ALS and given 3 to 5 years to live, at which time he was predicted to die by paralysis. The diagnosis had been confirmed by the Mayo Clinic. When he met me at the airport, he was 74 years old. The disease progression had stopped on its own."

"If the Colorado bills become law, there will be new lethal paths of elder abuse, which will be legally sanctioned and hidden from view," said Dore. "People with years, even decades to live, will be encouraged to throw away their lives. Even if you like the concept of assisted suicide and euthanasia, the proposed Colorado bills have it all wrong."

For back up documentation, please see below:.

1. Memo from Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA, to the Colorado Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee and to the Colorado House Judiciary Committee, January 30, 2016, available here: https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/colorado-memo-01-30-16.pdf and here:
https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/colorado-memo-attachment_001.pdf

2.  Margaret K. Dore, "'Death with Dignity': What Do We Advise Our Clients?," King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009,https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=05&Year=2009&AID=article5.htm

3.  Nina Shapiro, "Terminal Uncertainty: Washington's new "Death With Dignity" law allows doctors to help people commit suicide-once they've determined that the patient has only six months to live. But what if they're wrong?" Seattle Weekly, 01/14/09, available at https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/terminal-uncertainty-w-o-ad.pdf

-00-

Assisted-suicide laws are a prescription for abuse

http://altamontenterprise.com/01212016/assisted-suicide-laws-are-prescription-abuse

To the Editor:

I was glad to see the letter by Oregon doctor Kenneth Stevens, describing how legalizing assisted suicide in Oregon has led to steerage to suicide by the Oregon Health Plan (Medicaid).  ("No assisted suicide," Jan. 7, 2016).  I write to highlight another problem with legalization -- elder abuse.

I am a former three-term state representative in New Hampshire.  In 2014, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted down a similar law.  The vote was an overwhelming 3-to-1 defeat, 219 to 66.

At that time, the House of Representatives was controlled by the Democrats.  Many representatives who initially thought that they were for the bill, became uncomfortable when they studied it further.

Contrary to promoting "choice" for older people, assisted-suicide laws are a prescription for abuse.  They empower heirs and other predators to pressure and abuse older people to cut short their lives.

This is especially an issue when the older person has money.  There is no assisted suicide bill that you can write to correct this huge problem.  Don't be fooled.

Nancy Elliott

Merrimack, New Hampshire
Post date: January 21, 2016

New York State Legal/Policy Analysis

Below, please find a legal/policy analysis by attorney Margaret Dore opposing bills seeking to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in New York State. A hard copy can be viewed by clicking here; the appendix can be viewed by clicking here.  Please find a web version below.

I. INTRODUCTION

I am an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal.[1] Our law is based on a similar law in Oregon. Both laws are similar to the proposed New York State bills, which seek to legalize physician-assisted suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined.[2]

The proposed bills are described as “aid in dying,” but their reach is not limited to dying people. “Eligible” persons may have years, even decades, to live. The bills are a recipe for elder abuse.  There are other problems.

I agree with proponents that assuring patient choice and control is paramount. The bills, however, are stacked against the patient. This is due to their actual language. Some of the words used do not have their normal meanings. I urge you to read the definitions and other provisions carefully. Don’t be fooled; please reject this measure.

New York State Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia Bills Are a Recipe for Elder Abuse

TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Dore: "Even if you like the concept of assisted suicide and euthanasia, the proposed New York bills have it all wrong.”

Contact: Margaret Dore (206) 697-1217

Albany, NY -- Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought assisted suicide legalization efforts in many states and now New York State, made the following statement in connection with a legislative lobby day for proposed bills, which seek to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.

"There are bills pending before the New York State Legislature, which seek to legalize physician-assisted suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined," said Dore. "The bills are described as 'aid in dying,' but their reach is not limited to dying people. 'Eligible' persons may have years, even decades, to live."

Dore said, "The bills are a recipe for elder abuse. The patient's heir, who will financially benefit from the patient's death, is allowed to actively participate in signing the patient up for the lethal dose. There is no oversight over administration." Dore elaborated, "No doctor, not even a witness, is required to be present at the death. Even if the patient struggled, who would know? The bills create the perfect crime."  

Dore Legal and Policy Analysis of New York State Bills

Today, attorney Margaret Dore released a legal and policy analysis opposing bills seeking to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia in New York State, addressed to members of the Health Committees of the New York State Legislature.  Her analysis can be viewed by clicking here; back up documentation can be viewed by clicking here.  Please find the introduction below.

INTRODUCTION

I am an attorney in Washington State where assisted suicide is legal. Our law is based on a similar law in Oregon. Both laws are similar to the proposed New York State bills, which seek to legalize physician-assisted suicide, assisted suicide and euthanasia as those terms are traditionally defined.

The proposed bills are described as “aid in dying,” but their reach is not limited to dying people. “Eligible” persons may have years, even decades, to live; the bills are a recipe for elder abuse. There are other problems.

I agree with proponents that assuring patient choice and control is paramount. The bills, however, are stacked against the patient. This is due to their actual language. Some of the words used do not have their normal meanings. I urge you to read the definitions and other provisions carefully. 

Don’t be fooled  . . . .

MP Albrecht condemns U.S. court ruling on teen’s suicide

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/6213725-mp-albrecht-condemns-u-s-court-ruling-on-teen-s-suicide/
              

Waterloo Region Record

By Johanna Weidner

Nadia Kajouji embraced
by her father 

KITCHENER — Local MP Harold Albrecht criticized a U.S. court ruling that overturned the conviction of a man charged with encouraging a Brampton teen to take her own life.

William Melchert-Dinkel, a former nurse from Minnesota, was convicted in 2014 of attempting to assist the suicide of 18-year-old Nadia Kajouji, who died after jumping into the Rideau River in Ottawa in 2008.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Monday there wasn't enough evidence to uphold the conviction in the Carleton University student's death.

Quick Facts About Assisted Suicide

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

For a pdf version, please click here

1.  Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide means that someone provides the means and/or information for another person to commit suicide. When a physician is involved, the practice is physician-assisted suicide.

2. The Oregon and Washington Laws

In Oregon, physician-assisted suicide was legalized in 1997 via a ballot measure. In Washington State, a similar law was passed by another ballot measure in 2008 and went into effect in 2009.

3.  Problems With Legalization

The Oregon and Washington laws are a recipe for elder abuse and encourage people with years to live to throw away their lives. In Oregon, there are documented cases of the Oregon Heath Plan (Medicaid) steering patients to physician-assisted suicide via coverage incentives. Oregon’s conventional suicide rate has increased with legalization of assisted suicide, which is consistent with a suicide contagion. Patients and families are traumatized.

The Oregon and Washington laws require the death certificate to be falsified to reflect a natural death via a terminal disease, as opposed to the actual cause of death, a lethal dose. The significance is a lack of transparency and an inability to take legal action against overreaching parties.

The Cost of Physician-Assisted Suicide.

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA*
Updated November 25, 2015 

It is often assumed that legalizing physician-assisted suicide will save states money. Don’t be so sure. In Oregon, legalization is correlated with an increase in other suicides, the cost of which is "enormous."

More Suicide

Oregon's law legalizing physician-assisted suicide went into effect “in late 1997.”[1] Since then, Oregon has reported a small, but steadily rising number of deaths.[2]

Oregon's other suicides, which are tracked separately, have also increased. Indeed, by 2000, Oregon's suicide rate for other suicides was "increasing significantly."[2] By 2007, Oregon's suicide rate for other suicides was 35% above the national average.[3] By 2010, Oregon's suicide rate for other suicides was 41% above the national average.[4]

The Financial Cost

The financial cost of these other suicides (and suicide attempts) is huge for Oregon, a smaller population state. The Oregon Health Authority states:

The cost of suicide is enormous. In 2010 alone, self-inflicted injury hospitalization charges exceeded 41 million dollars; and the estimate of total lifetime cost of suicide in Oregon was over 680 million dollars. (Footnotes omitted).[5]

People With Disabilities Are a High Risk Group for Suicide; Legal Assisted Suicide Discussed as a Contributing Factor.

By Margaret Dore

Thank you Stephen Mendelsohn, of Second Thoughts Connecticut, for providing this important

Stephen Mendelsohn

news.

The State of Connecticut Suicide Prevention Plan for 2020 includes people with disabilities and chronic health conditions as a high-risk group (similar to military veterans or the LGBT community) and discusses assisted suicide as a possible contributing factor to the problem. The Plan states:

Until recently, the [Connecticut Suicide Advisory Board] CTSAB was considering assisted suicide of the terminally ill as a separate issue from suicide prevention. The active disability community in Connecticut, however, has been vocal on the need for suicide prevention services for people with disabilities. 

The Plan goes on:

There may be unintended consequences of assisted suicide legislation on people with disabilities. Peace (2012) writes that "Many assume that disability is a fate worse than death. So we admire people with a disability who want to die, and we shake our collective heads in confusion when they want to live.” People with disabilities have a right to responsive suicide prevention services. The CTSAB intends to continue to explore the needs of the disability community for such services. (Emphasis added).

Plan, p. 44.

The Plan concludes with "Targeted Recommendations,"which push back against the idea of rational suicide for people with disabilities:

• Do not "assume" suicide is a "rational" response to disability.

• Treat mental health conditions as aggressively as with a person without disability. (Emphasis added)

Id.

German Jewry applauds defeat of liberalized assisted suicide laws

http://www.jta.org/2015/11/10/news-opinion/world/german-jewry-cheers-defeat-of-liberalized-assisted-suicide-laws

November 10, 2015 6:20am

(JTA) Assisted suicide laws will not be liberalized in Germany, a move that the country's Jewish community had vigorously opposed.

The Bundestag decided not to legalize organizations that promote or offer assisted suicide and to continue barring doctors from offering such assistance as a regular medical service.

Lawmakers instead toughened the national stance against commercialized assisted suicide. Such acts will now be punished with up to three years in jail, even if a doctor claims to have acted to relieve a patient's suffering. The bill was passed on Friday with 360 out of 602 votes, Reuters reported.

Dr. Josef Schuster, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, told the Bayerischen Rundfunk broadcasting company that he was "relieved" at the decision on easing assisted suicide laws "after a long, serious, and sometimes emotional debate."

Euthanasia is a particularly sensitive topic in Germany, as an estimated 200,000 people, most of them mentally and physically disabled, were murdered in the Nazi "euthanasia" program, their lives considered "unworthy" by the state.

Persons Living with HIV/AIDS: Is This What You Want?

By Margaret Dore, Esq

This is an updated version of an article I wrote three years ago in response to HIV/AIDS groups that had endorsed Ballot Question 2, seeking to legalize assisted suicide in Massachusetts. The ballot question failed, but there is now a similar proposal pending in the Massachusetts legislature (H.1991). I suggest that these groups and persons living with HIV/AIDS give the new proposal a close look. 

1.  "Terminal" does not mean dying. 

H.1991 applies to persons with a "terminal illness," defined in terms of less than six months to live with or without treatment.[1] 

In the 1980's, HIV/AIDS was a death sentence. Today, we have people living with HIV/AIDS, who do well, but who are dependent on treatment to live. Some of these persons are "terminal" under H.1991, i.e., if, without treatment, they "can reasonably be expected to die within 6 months."[2] 

2.  The significance of a terminal label.

Once a person is labeled "terminal," an easy justification can be made that his or her treatment should be denied in favor of someone more deserving. In Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, "terminal" patients have not only been denied treatment, they have been offered assisted suicide instead. In a 2012 affidavit, Oregon doctor Kenneth Stevens put it this way:

Under the Oregon Health Plan [Medicaid], there is . . .  a financial incentive towards suicide because the Plan will not necessarily pay for a patient’s treatment. For example, patients with cancer are denied treatment if they have a "less than [two years] median survival with treatment" and fit other criteria. . . . 

All such persons . . .  will . . . be denied treatment. Their suicides under Oregon’s assisted suicide act will be covered."[3]

He also noted that some persons denied treatment as "terminal" would, if treated, in fact have years, even decades, to live. He stated: 

Some of the patients living longer than two years will likely live far longer than two years, as much as five, ten or twenty years depending on the type of cancer. This is because there are always some people who beat the odds.[4] 

Dore Professional Commentary

http://jurist.org/hotline/2015/10/margaret-dore-physician-assisted-suicide.php

California's New Assisted Suicide Law: Whose Choice Will it Be?

JURIST Guest Columnist, Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

Editor, Maria Coladonato; 

©  WikiMedia (Christopher Padalinski)

California has passed a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide, which is scheduled to go into effect during 2016. "The End of Life Option Act" was sold as giving patients choice and control at the end of life. The bill, in fact, is about ending the lives of people who are not necessarily dying anytime soon and giving other people the "option" to hurry them along. The bill is a recipe for elder abuse and family trauma. 

New York Daily News: Judge Rules Against Assisted Suicide

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rules-n-y-die-assisted-physician-article-1.2403502

BY Leonard Greene, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Monday, October 19, 2015, 8:54 PM

A Manhattan judge has denied the dying wish of three New Yorkers who wanted their doctors off the hook if they assisted in their suicides.

Steve Goldenberg, Sara Myers and Eric Seiff, who are all terminally ill, said they want nothing more than to be able to die in peace.

But for that, they said they need a little help, and don’t want their doctors to face any flak.

But state civil judge Joan Kenney said that while she was sympathetic to their plight, their doctors would have to stay on the sidelines.

Kenney said in her ruling that the U.S. Supreme Court has already found that New York state laws prohibit assisted suicide, and the statutes are not in violation of a patients civil rights.

“In New York, as in most states, it is a crime to aid another to commit or attempt suicide,” Kenney said in her ruling. “But patients may refuse lifesaving medical treatment.”

California Killin'

by Paul © -- with apologies to the Mamas and Papas.


Signed by Jerry Brown on an autumn day.

Silencing the lambs, slaughter on the way.

It ain't safe no more; Redding to L.A.

California killin' such a tragic day.

Tennessee Decision Upholding Assisted Suicide Law.

Click here to view the Tennesee Chancery Court decision upholding criminal statute prohibiting assisted suicide, entered yesterday, September 29, 2015.

Judge rules against legalizing assisted suicide in Tennessee

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson%20/2015/09/29/judge-rules-against-tn-assisted-suicide/73048034/

Lucas L. Johnson II, Associated Press, and Stacey Barchenger, The Tennessean6:12 p.m. CDT September 29, 2015

A former Democratic gubernatorial candidate who is terminally ill cannot die by assisted suicide, a judge ruled Tuesday, saying doctors engaging in such a practice are committing "criminal conduct."

John Jay Hooker has terminal cancer and has doctors who have expressed a willingness to prescribe him a lethal dosage of painkillers.

Why California's ABX2-15 Must be Vetoed.

ABX2-15 seeks to legalize physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in California. The bill is a recipe for elder abuse in which a "qualifying" individual may be legally murdered for the money. For more detail, see this memorandum and its attachments.  

KEY POINTS

1. ABX2-15 applies to people with a "terminal disease," which is defined as having a medical prognosis of less than six months to live. (Memo, p.9). Such persons can, in fact, have years, even decades, to live. The more obvious reasons being misdiagnosis and the fact that predicting life expectancy is not an exact science. (Id., pp. 11-12). Doctors can sometimes be widely wrong. (Id.).

2. In Oregon, which has a nearly identical definition of “terminal disease,” eligible persons include young adults with chronic conditions such as insulin dependent diabetes. (Memo, p. 9-11). Such persons, with appropriate medical care, can have years, even decades, to live. 

3. ABX2-15 allows the patient's heir, who will financially benefit from his/her death, to actively participate in signing the patient up for the lethal dose. (Memo, p. 7). This is an extreme conflict of interest.

4. Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight. Not even a witness is required when the lethal dose is administered. If the patient protested or even struggled against administration, who would know? (Memo, pp. 8-9).

5. Assisted suicide can be traumatic for family members as well as patients. (Memo., pp. 12-13)

6. If California follows Washington State, the death certificate is required to be falsified to reflect a natural death. (Memo, pp. 16-18). The significance is a lack of transparency and an inability to prosecute for murder even in a case of outright murder for the money. Id. 

California: Contact the Governor now to stop assisted suicide/euthanasia.

Outright Lies to Trusting Legislators Gets California Bill to Governor's Desk.  Tell Jerry Brown to Veto ABX2-15 Now! 

• Call 916-445-2841!
• Fax 916-558-3160 
• Use this form to send an e-mail to Governor Brown:  https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php  (US Mail will be too slow)

On Friday, September 11th, ABX2-15 passed the Senate just weeks after its initial introduction during a special session called for another purpose. During its short and expedited life, proponents ran roughshod on the facts to induce busy legislators to vote yes. This was evident during the final floor debate in the Senate where proponents repeatedly stated or implied the following, which are not true:

1.  That the bill is limited to people who are actively dying and in pain. The bill doesn't say this anywhere. The bill, instead, applies to people with a "terminal disease" defined as having a prediction of less than six months to live. (Memo, pp.9 -12). Such persons can, in fact, have years, even decades, to live.  (Id.) In Oregon, which has a nearly identical definition, "eligible" persons include young adults with chronic conditions such as insulin dependent diabetes. (Id).

2.  That the bill is "one of the strongest bills regarding patient protections." The bill, however, doesn't even require a witness when the lethal dose is administered.[1] If the patient protested or struggled, who would know?[2] In addition, the bill's various legal "requirements" are not actually "required." This is because participants are merely held to a "good faith" standard.[3] This standard is not defined in the bill, but common meanings include that participants need not comply with legal technicalities when they have honest intent.  See, for example, this legal dictionary definition:

[Good faith means] honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fufill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled.  (Emphasis added).[4] 

For these and other reasons, tell Jerry Brown to veto ABX2-15. For more information, see: Dore letter discussing why the Baker amendments did not fix the bill's problems; Dore memo why the financial cost of ABX2-15 could be "enormous"; and a formal memo regarding the bill generally, including "key points," an index, aformal memo and an appendix.

* * *
[1]  See ABX2-15 in its entirety.
[2]  Id.
[3]  ABX2-15, Sections 443.19(d), 443.14(b), 443.14(d)(1) and 443.15(c).
[4]  "Hill" citation at http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/good+faith