Law Commons^™

The Rhetoric Of Neutrality And The Philosophers’ Brief: A Critique Of The Amicus Brief Of Six Moral Philosophers In Washington V. Glucksberg And Vacco V. Quill, Richard Church

Law and Contemporary Problems

Church discusses the amicus brief to the US Supreme Court in the companion assisted suicide cases of "Washington v. Glucksberg" and "Vacco v. Quill," in which six philosophers offer their views. The philosophers' charge--that prohibiting physician-assisted suicide can only be based on impermissible sectarian religious or ethical premises--can be raised against their "neutral" liberal argument itself.

Institutional Analysis And Physicians’ Rights After Vacco V. Quill, Larry I. Palmer

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

No abstract provided.

Dignity And Autonomy After Washington V. Glucksberg: An Essay About Abortion, Death, And Crime, Lois Shepherd

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy

No abstract provided.

The Alleged Distinction Between Euthanasia And The Withdrawal Of Life-Sustaining Treatment: Conceptually Incoherent And Impossible To Maintain, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

Richard Epstein, in his book Mortal Peril, supports euthanasia and assisted suicide and rejects the distinction between them and withdrawal of treatment. In this essay, Professor Orentlicher argues that Epstein is correct in finding no meaningful moral distinction between euthanasia and treatment withdrawal, examines the reasons why the distinction has persisted in American jurisprudence, and explains why the distinction has eroded.

Epstein also concludes in his book that there is no constitutional right to euthanasia or assisted suicide. Professor Orentlicher's response is that constitutionality is not the appropriate inquiry; rather, the better question is whether to recognize a right to …

Managed Care, Assisted Suicide, And Vulnerable Populations, M. Cathleen Kaveny

Journal Articles

While advocates of physician assisted suicide consider it a core aspect of individual autonomy legalizing the practice is extremely dangerous and puts the most vulnerable members of our society at risk. Legalized physician assisted suicide takes away the autonomy of the decision to die and makes it an option in a flawed healthcare system, where patients are often denied coverage for medical expenses by employer-sponsored benefit plans and medical insurers are concerned primarily with cutting costs spent on each patient. Complexities in the way that physicians are compensated under the current system of managed care is also eroding their responsibility …

Physician-Assisted Suicide: The Problems Presented By The Compelling, Heartwrenching Case, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld New York and Washington state laws prohibiting the aiding of another to commit suicide,2 the spotlight will shift to the state courts, the state legislatures and state referenda. And once again proponents of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) will point to a heartwrenching case, perhaps the relatively rare case where a dying person is experiencing unavoidable pain (i.e., pain that not even the most skilled palliative care experts are able to mitigate), and ask: What would you want done to you if you were in this person's shoes?

On The Meaning And Impact Of The Physician-Assisted Suicide Cases. (Symposium: Physician-Assisted Suicide: Facing Death After Glucksberg And Quill), Yale Kamisar

Articles

I read every newspaper article I could find on the meaning and impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 1997 decisions in Washington v. Glucksberg' and Vacco v. Quill.2 I came away with the impression that some proponents of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) were unable or unwilling publicly to recognize the magnitude of the setback they suffered when the Court handed down its rulings in the PAS cases.

The Future Of Physician-Assisted Suicide, Yale Kamisar

Articles

I believe that when the Supreme Court handed down its decisions in 1997 in Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacca v. Quill, proponents of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) suffered a much greater setback than many of them are able or willing to admit.