The religious groups and disability rights advocates who oppose assisted death are concerned that elderly and disabled people, especially those who are low-income, could be pressured into taking the drugs in order to end or avoid expensive, life-sustaining care. They fear the protections suggested would not overcome the temptation of those hoping for legacies, and that family members or other heirs could slip the drugs to the patient without their knowledge or consent.  

“Legislation effectively paints a target on the back of each and every elderly and disabled person in our state,” said Sen. Joel Anderson, R-San Diego, paraphrasing an elder abuse advocate. “The promises and assurances of the safeguards and protections from the representatives of those in favor are based in innocent ignorance.”  (NPR 2015)

He has a point, but the other way of looking at it is that it is cruel to keep alive an elderly person with an incurable disease, and who wants to end his or her life, and that that life belongs to the elderly person and to no one else.  Sensible rules specify that two doctors have to agree to an assisted death, and that their decision has to be reviewed and agreed to by a third doctor who has had nothing directly to do with the case.  The possibility of “influencing” three doctors are slim.  Faced with an old population whose members are increasingly going to live past 100, one has to ask the question, “yes, but with what quality of life?”. I hope and pray that, if and when it comes to my turn my wishes will be respected, notwithstanding the horrible decision that others have to make.