Brittany Maynard: The Story That Changed California Law

Who was Brittany Maynard?

Brittany Maynard was born in Anaheim, California, on 19 November 1984. She studied psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, and later earned a master's degree in education. She taught at orphanages in Kathmandu, Nepal, and she loved travel, trekking and mountain climbing. In September 2012 she married Dan Diaz.

On New Year's Day 2014, after months of very bad headaches, she learned she had brain cancer. She was 29. She later wrote that she and her husband had been trying for a family.

She had surgery. In April the tumour came back, and it was more aggressive. Doctors said she had about six months to live. After months of research, she and her family decided that no treatment could save her life. In her words, the treatments on offer "would have destroyed the time I had left."

She chose to spend that time with the people she loved, travelling to "outdoor wonders of nature". She also made a public choice. She told the world what she planned to do, and why.

Why did she move from California to Oregon?

In 2014, California did not allow medical aid in dying. This means a doctor may prescribe medication that a dying adult can choose to take to end their life. Oregon had allowed it since its Death with Dignity Act took effect in 1997. But at that time, only Oregon residents could use it. Oregon's careful, rule-bound model was very different from the path Jack Kevorkian took in Michigan in the 1990s.

So Maynard and her family moved. In an article for CNN on 7 October 2014, she listed what that took. She had to find new doctors, find a new home, get a new driver's licence and change her voter registration. Her husband had to take leave from his job. She added: "The vast majority of families do not have the flexibility, resources and time to make all these changes."

Think of a medicine that is sold in the next state but not in yours. Only people with money and time can make the trip.

She was clear that she did not see herself as suicidal. "I am not suicidal," she wrote. She also wrote that she would not tell anyone else to make her choice. Then she said:

"I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms." — Brittany Maynard, CNN, 7 October 2014

Her story spread fast. With the group Compassion & Choices, she started a fund and made videos, which millions of people watched within days. Her story on People magazine's website was read by more than 16 million unique visitors. She died on 1 November 2014, aged 29.

What would you want your family to know about how you see the end of your life?

How did her story lead to a new law in California?

Maynard wanted her home state to change. Before she died, she recorded a video for California lawmakers. On 25 March 2015, her family played it to the State Senate Health Committee. In it, she said the decision "should be up to me and my family under a doctor's care." The committee voted 6–2 to move the bill forward.

Her mother, Debbie Ziegler, told reporters that her daughter had said: "Oh, Momma. I hope that other people will speak up when I'm gone."

The bill was Senate Bill 128, written by Senators Lois Wolk and Bill Monning. This is what happened next:

• 20 May 2015: The California Medical Association, which represents doctors, became the first state medical association in the US to drop its opposition. It moved to a neutral position. Its president said the choice is a very personal one between a doctor and their patient.
• Summer 2015: The bill passed the Senate but stalled in the Assembly Health Committee.
• September 2015: Supporters brought a new version, ABx2 15, into a special session of the legislature. Governor Jerry Brown had called this session to deal with Medi-Cal, the state health program for people on low incomes. The bill passed.
• 5 October 2015: Governor Brown signed it.

In his signing message, he said he had read opposition from doctors, religious leaders and disability rights groups. He had also read "heartfelt pleas from Brittany Maynard's family" and from Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He spoke with a Catholic bishop, two of his own doctors, and old friends. Then he wrote:

"I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain." — Governor Jerry Brown, signing message, 5 October 2015

He said it would be a comfort to have the option, "and I wouldn't deny that right to others."

What does the California End of Life Option Act allow?

The End of Life Option Act took effect on 9 June 2016. In plain English, a person must:

• Be an adult (18 or older) who lives in California.
• Have a terminal illness that two doctors expect to cause death within six months.
• Have mental capacity. This means they can understand their choices and decide for themselves.
• Make the request themselves. No family member or doctor can ask for them.
• Be able to take the medication themselves.

The person must make two spoken requests to their doctor, and a written request signed in front of two adult witnesses. Pressuring or tricking someone into using the law is a felony, which is a serious crime. Taking part is voluntary for patients and for doctors.

For the difference between terms like "assisted dying" and "euthanasia", see euthanasia vs assisted suicide vs MAID.

Did anyone challenge the law in court?

Yes, twice.

The 2018 Riverside case. A group of doctors argued the law was passed the wrong way. On 15 May 2018, a Riverside County judge agreed. He ruled that lawmakers should not have passed it in a special session meant for Medi-Cal. The ruling was about procedure, not about whether aid in dying is right or wrong. The law was suspended for a few weeks. Then a higher court put it back in force while it heard the appeal.

On 27 November 2018, in Ahn v. Hestrin, the appeals court ruled 2–1 that the challengers had no "standing". This means they could not show the law harmed them, because no one has to take part. The court said they "lack standing for any of the theories they have asserted". The case finally ended in November 2021.

The 2023 disability rights case. In April 2023, United Spinal Association and other disability rights groups sued in federal court. They argued the law discriminates against disabled people. On 28 March 2024, a federal judge dismissed the case. The groups appealed. In March 2025 the federal appeals court put the appeal on hold while it decided a related case. The law stays in force.

What changed after the law was passed?

The waiting time got shorter. At first, a person had to wait at least 15 days between their two requests. Supporters said many very sick people died during the wait. A new law, SB 380, signed in October 2021, cut the wait to 48 hours from January 2022.

The law became permanent. The original law had a "sunset" date, like the expiry date on a carton of milk. It would have ended in 2031. On 3 October 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 403, which removed that date from 1 January 2026. Dan Diaz still works with Compassion & Choices. He said: "All Californians deserve the same opportunity – permanently."

Oregon dropped its residency rule. On 13 July 2023, Oregon removed the rule that patients must live in the state. People no longer have to move house, as Maynard did. They still need Oregon doctors who agree to take part.

More states passed laws. In 2014, Maynard wrote that Oregon was one of only five states where aid in dying was allowed. In 2026, the Death with Dignity National Center listed 13 states plus Washington, D.C. For the global picture, see countries where euthanasia is legal.

What the numbers show. The California Department of Public Health's 2025 report gives these figures:

• In 2025, 1,839 people received a prescription, and 1,235 people died under the law.
• Their median age was 79. Most had cancer (62.8%).
• 94.3% were receiving hospice or palliative care.
• 83.5% had told their family about their decision.
• From 2016 to 2025, 10,213 people received prescriptions and 6,758 died using them. Not everyone who gets a prescription uses it.

So the typical person who uses the law is not a young woman like Maynard. Most are older people with cancer who are already in hospice care.

What do supporters and critics say?

Supporters see the law as respect for personal choice at the very end of life. They point to Maynard's own words. She wrote that having the option gave her "a sense of peace" and a "safety net". Supporters also note that the law only covers people who are already dying, and that most users are already receiving end-of-life care.

Some other dying patients disagreed with her. Kara Tippetts and Maggie Karner both had terminal cancer. Each wrote to Maynard and asked her to reconsider. Their letters are a reminder that people facing the same illness can reach very different answers.

Religious critics see a moral line. After Maynard died, Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, head of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, called her choice "reprehensible". He said: "We don't judge people, but the gesture in itself is to be condemned." He added that dignity is something different from ending your own life.

Disability rights critics raise some of the strongest concerns. Around the 2015 Senate hearing, Marilyn Golden of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF) called it a "deadly mix" to combine a broken health system with assisted suicide, which could become the cheapest "treatment". DREDF argues that most people who use these laws give reasons such as losing independence, not pain. In its view, needing help with daily care is not a loss of dignity. Many disabled people live with that help every day.

Medical critics also remain. The American Medical Association still says assisted suicide is "fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer". It says doctors must never abandon a dying patient and must give good pain control and comfort care. It also accepts that thoughtful people disagree in good faith.

Both sides agree on one thing: no one should die in pain, alone or afraid. They disagree on how to prevent that. Our section on the arguments for and against euthanasia looks at the evidence behind each view.

Which worry feels closest to you: losing control at the end, or vulnerable people feeling pushed?

What can families learn from Brittany Maynard's story?

You do not need to agree with Maynard's choice to learn from her family. They talked openly. They studied the medical facts together. Everyone knew what she wanted. Here are steps any family can take:

• Talk early. Maynard and her family had months to plan together. Many families have only days. Our guide on how to talk to your family about end-of-life wishes gives simple ways to start.
• Write it down. An advance directive records which treatments you want and do not want. See advance directives and living wills.
• Choose one person to speak for you. If you cannot decide for yourself, a healthcare proxy can. See how to choose a healthcare proxy.
• Ask about palliative care and hospice early. Most people who used California's law were already in hospice or palliative care. These services treat pain and support the whole family. See what palliative care is, signs it may be time for hospice and our section on how palliative care differs from euthanasia.
• Know the law where you live. Rules differ by state and country. Ask your doctor what is legal and what they are willing to do. Our section on euthanasia laws by country is a good place to start.

Brittany Maynard hoped other people would speak up after she was gone. Whatever you believe about aid in dying, you can do that in your own family: say what matters to you while you still can.

For other stories that shaped the law, see our guide to famous euthanasia cases.