Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Health Law and Policy (3)
- Legal Writing and Research (3)
- Constitutional Law (2)
- Courts (2)
- Family Law (2)
-
- Judges (2)
- Law and Politics (2)
- Litigation (2)
- Medical Jurisprudence (2)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (2)
- Social Welfare Law (2)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Conflict of Laws (1)
- Economics (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Law and Economics (1)
- Legal Education (1)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Religion (1)
- Sexuality and the Law (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- State and Local Government Law (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Life And Death Decision-Making: Judges V. Legislators As Sources Of Law In Bioethics, Charles Baron
Life And Death Decision-Making: Judges V. Legislators As Sources Of Law In Bioethics, Charles Baron
Charles H. Baron
In some situations, courts may be better sources of new law than legislatures. Some support for this proposition is provided by the performance of American courts in the development of law regarding the “right to die.” When confronted with the problems presented by mid-Twentieth Century technological advances in prolonging human life, American legislators were slow to act. It was the state common law courts, beginning with Quinlan in 1976, that took primary responsibility for gradually crafting new legal principles that excepted withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment from the application of general laws dealing with homicide and suicide. These courts, like the …
Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman
Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman
Charles H. Baron
In Baker v. State, the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that the state constitution’s Common Benefits Clause prohibits the exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and protections of marriage. Baker has been praised by constitutional scholars as a prototypical example of the New Judicial Federalism. The authors agree, asserting that the decision sets a standard for constitutional discourse by dint of the manner in which each of the opinions connects and responds to the others, pulls together arguments from other state and federal constitutional authorities, and provides a clear basis for subsequent development of constitutional principle. This Article explores …
Medical Paternalism And The Rule Of Law: A Reply To Dr. Relman, Charles Baron
Medical Paternalism And The Rule Of Law: A Reply To Dr. Relman, Charles Baron
Charles H. Baron
In this Article, Professor Baron challenges the position taken recently by Dr. Arnold Relman in this journal that the 1977 Saikewicz decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts was incorrect in calling for routine judicial resolution of decisions whether to provide life-prolonging treatment to terminally ill incompetent patients. First, Professor Baron argues that Dr. Relman's position that doctors should make such decisions is based upon an outmoded, paternalistic view of the doctor-patient relationship. Second, he points out the importance of guaranteeing to such decisions the special qualities of process which characterize decision making by courts and which are not …
Assuring "Detached But Passionate Investigation And Decision": The Role Of Guardians Ad Litem In Saikewicz-Type Cases, Charles Baron
Assuring "Detached But Passionate Investigation And Decision": The Role Of Guardians Ad Litem In Saikewicz-Type Cases, Charles Baron
Charles H. Baron
The author focuses this Article upon the aspect of the Saikewicz decision which determines that the kind of "proxy consent" question involved in that case required for its decision "the process of detached but passionate investigation and decision that forms the ideal on which the judicial branch of government was created." This aspect of the decision has drawn much criticism from the medical community on the ground that it embroils what doctors believe to be a medical question in the adversarial processes of the court system. The author criticizes the decision from an entirely opposite perspective, arguing that the court's …