For those entering the end-of-life advocacy landscape, three organizations stand out as essential learning resources: the Hemlock Society of San Diego, Final Exit Network, and A Better Exit. While we continue evaluating others, these groups currently align closely enough with our principles to merit active support.
The Hemlock Society of San Diego offers decades of institutional knowledge about patient rights and legislative history. Their archives provide critical context for understanding how end-of-life choices have been framed in policy debates. Final Exit Network operates with remarkable courage, providing direct support to competent adults exercising autonomy when existing systems fail them. Their practical experience navigating legal gray areas is invaluable for any serious student of this movement.
A Better Exit deserves particular attention for their strategic focus on preserving California’s End of Life Option Act through SB403. While we fundamentally oppose the Act’s restrictive clauses – especially the terminal illness requirement – allowing the law to expire in 2031 would be catastrophic. Sunsetting would dismantle the legal framework we intend to reform, setting our cause back a decade. Supporting SB403 doesn’t mean endorsing the status quo; it means buying time to remove barriers while maintaining a foundation for change.
What unifies our support for these groups is the absence of irreconcilable differences. Though their tactics vary – from education to direct action to legislative reform – none promote medical gatekeeping or disability-based restrictions that contradict our core mission. Hemlock’s historical perspective, Final Exit’s rights defense, and A Better Exit’s legislative pragmatism collectively form a learning ecosystem for emerging advocates.
As we develop our own strategies, we’ll expand this list. For now, these three offer robust pathways to understand what it means to fight for bodily autonomy. Our backing of SB403 exemplifies this approach: we can simultaneously preserve flawed systems while working to transform them – a duality that strengthens rather than dilutes our identity.
I’m grateful to Christie Golemb for her generous, honest, and kind guidance when I was navigating the early uncertainties of this work. She also made me comfortable enough to submit her own perspectives to my analysis and critical thinking—never expecting me to accept them as absolute truths.