But what was rarely acknowledged in the California media is that the Oregon law — while winning positive notices from that state’s media — has a solid core of skeptics who complained of skewed or inadequate data backing up assertions that the safeguards work.

Working with Oregon residents, the Ohio-based Patients Rights Council in 2008 published a review of Oregon’s law, surveying the measure after it had been in effect for 10 years.

The review includes a list of dubious cases in which suicides were botched or influenced by family members and noted how little documentation or evidence-gathering there was for claims that safeguards were working.

Most intriguingly, it included a link to a British House of Lords report on a possible British version of Oregon’s law, based on a fact-finding trip some lawmakers had taken to Oregon. It included more than 100 pages of testimony and related information involving different Oregon agency officials and others in state medical circles. Here’s a link to the PDF: Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL], Volume II: Evidence. The Oregon testimony begins on page 255.

British lawmakers rejected law after Oregon visit

As the Patients Rights Council notes, British lawmakers who went to Oregon were skeptical of the official narrative.

After hearing witnesses from Oregon claim that there had been no complications (other than “regurgitation”) associated with more than 200 assisted-suicide deaths, Lord McColl of Dulwich, a surgeon, questioned that assertion.

 

He said that, in his practice as a physician, “if any surgeon or physician had told me that he did 200 procedures without any complications, I knew he possibly needed counseling and had no insight. We come here and I am told there are no complications.  There is something strange going on.“

A Portland physician, Dr. William Toffler, told British lawmakers that Oregon authorities were not taking oversight responsibilities seriously.

We have to be candid about these problems with overdoses. The state of Oregon has been less ingenuous about the problems of overdoses. It took six years before the Oregon Health Division’s flawed tracking system even reported one case of vomiting. Can you imagine any pills that you give, even for overdoses, that never cause vomiting? That is what the Oregon Health would have us believe from their tracking system. …

The British House of Lords ended up rejecting an Oregon-style law in 2006 on a 148-100 vote, according to the Patients Rights Council.

Before adopting its version of Oregon’s law, California lawmakers heard out many critics and supporters. But the Oregon-specific criticisms voiced by the Patients Rights Council, and evidently shared by the House of Lords, never were spotlighted.

Legislators considered scrapping the Medical Board entirely, then settled for a less punitive approach. But concern about how the state agency operates is once again back in the news, and the focus is once again on its leaders’ attitude about painkillers. The Los Angeles Times has details:

An Orange County doctor accused of gross negligence in the care of two patients who fatally overdosed on drugs he prescribed has been placed on probation by the Medical Board of California.

 

Van H. Vu, who owns a busy pain clinic in Huntington Beach, agreed not to contest the board’s accusation, to take classes in prescribing and record keeping and to submit to an outside practice monitor for five years. In exchange, the board allowed Vu to keep his license and continue prescribing potent painkillers.

This has rekindled the complaints made in 2013 that the Medical Board is too sympathetic toward doctors accused of wrongdoing and not concerned enough about public safety.

Doctor linked to more than a dozen overdose deaths

A 2012 investigation of Vu by the Times showed a pattern of practice that dumbfounded independent medical authorities:

Avoids ‘uncertainty of a trial’

An official with the American Association of Pain Medicine condemned Vu in 2012, saying his prescription practices were grossly inappropriate and reflected an ignorance of the danger of such drugs as Oxycodone.

It’s not clear how much weight such observations carried with the Medical Board in deciding Vu’s punishment earlier this month. But the agency’s spokeswoman defended its light sanctions as serving the public’s interest “by avoiding the expense and uncertainty of a trial.”

“It makes the resolution faster,” spokeswoman Cassandra Hockenson told the Times. “We still have the upper hand. He will be watched very, very closely. … If he deviates one iota from these probationary requirements, revocation is back on the table.”

The Vu case could rekindle interest in the Legislature in making changes to the Medical Board. But it is uncertain who would lead such a campaign. The two state senators who led the push for the 2013 reform measure are no longer in Sacramento. Curren Price was elected to the Los Angeles City Council and Ted Lieu was elected to Congress.

The Vu case could spur yet another push to increase the state’s 30-year-old cap of $250,000 on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases.

California voters, however, have backed the cap — most recently last November, when state voters rejected Proposition 46, which would have made big changes in the 1975 law.

Steinberg himself was not shaken up about the news. He expressed confidence that similar work would be done in some other way, according to the Sacramento Bee. “I have every confidence that Kevin is committed to oversight, but there are many ways to do it,” he said. “This is the way I chose to do it and I’m sure he will have his way.” Steinberg’s oversight office was funded directly through the office of the president pro tem.

Personal priorities

That was an expense de Leon clearly did not wish to maintain, despite his willingness to throw a lavish party this October for his swearing in as president pro tem. Many critics, the Los Angeles Times reported, found the bash an “inappropriate extravagance at a time when the state Senate is struggling to shake off the taint of corruption scandals and regain public trust.” Earlier this year, three Democratic state senators were indicted on federal corruption charges.

The celebration’s $50,000 tab was not covered by de Leon himself. Instead, the California Latino Legislative Caucus Foundation, which recently attracted five-figure donations from AT&T and Chevron, footed the bill.

De Leon’s approach to spending was recently on display in his shakeup of the state Senate staff. “Last month, de León laid off 39 employees, including staff who wrote bill analyses, did research and performed secretarial duties,” the Bee reported. A shoeshiner, paid a yearly wage of $13,000 “to provide information to Capitol visitors,” also was let go. Staff costs for Steinberg’s oversight office ran to about $380,000 yearly.

De Leon’s choice to trim budgetary costs by reducing staff, however, has not attracted much attention or scorn. The same cannot be said for his elimination of the Senate’s government oversight office.

Blowback

Steinberg’s oversight office produced a high volume of reports that made a substantial impact. As the Bee reported:

“Investigations found that a lack of scrutiny allowed sex offenders to treat drug addicts at state rehab clinics; that California’s mortgage lender foreclosed on homeowners who were current on their loans; that redevelopment agencies spent money without adequate accountability; and that tax breaks had cost the state $6.3 billion more than anticipated. Other reports made recommendations for curbing fraud in the home health care system and found that an illogical bureaucracy made it hard for regulators to detect fraud in state child care programs. The findings were frequently used as the basis for Senate oversight hearings and also led to new legislation.”

The office’s track record has led some political observers to raise eyebrows and pen editorials calling de Leon’s judgment into question. De Leon’s handling of the issue has left Democrats vulnerable to criticism for trying to return to business as usual following this year’s spate of humiliating scandals, as recent editorial in the Los Angeles Daily News suggested:

“In a further testament to ethical tone-deafness, Senate Democrats have chosen to revive their annual Pro Tem Cup, the golf event and major party fundraiser at Torrey Pines that has charged special-interest representatives up to $65,000 to trade strokes with lawmakers. The event was canceled this year because it wouldn’t have looked so good with Senate Democrats Leland Yee, Ron Calderon and Rod Wright facing ethics charges.”

In another coincidence of timing, cops in de Leon’s district have been handed a new oversight body. In the wake of serious ethics charges of their own, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department was put under civilian oversight by the Board of Supervisors, as the Times reported.

And in a second coincidence, the de Leon controversy has unfolded at the same time as a similar one in the federal government, although this time it’s Republicans mainly involved.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, revealed he’ll take a less pugnacious approach to the House Oversight Committee than the chairman he is replacing, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

In 2012, Issa’s actions led to the House of Representatives holding Attorney Gen. Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over the Fast and Furious weapons scandal.