Law Commons^™

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 …

The Reasons So Many People Support Physician-Assisted Suicide - And Why These Reasons Are Not Convincing, Yale Kamisar

Articles

It would be hard to deny that there is a great deal of support in this country-and ever-growing support-for legalizing physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Why is this so? I believe there are a considerable number of reasons. In this article, I shall discuss five common reasons and explain why I do not find any of them convincing.

Physician Assisted Suicide: The Last Bridge To Active Voluntary Euthanasia, Yale Kamisar

Book Chapters

SOME 30 YEARS AGO an eminent constitutional law scholar, Charles L. Black, Jr, spoke of 'toiling uphill against that heaviest of all argumental weights- the weight of a slogan.' I am reminded of that observation when I confront the slogan the 'right to die.' Few rallying cries or slogans are more appealing and seductive than the 'right to die.' But few are more fuzzy, more misleading, or more misunderstood.

When Is There A Constitutional 'Right To Die'? When Is There No Constitutional 'Right To Live'?, Yale Kamisar

Articles

When I am invited to participate in conferences on the "right to die," I suspect that the organizers of such gatherings expect me to fill what might be called the " 'slippery slope' slot" on the program or, more generally, to articulate the "conservative" position on this controversial matter. These expectations are hardly surprising. The "right to die" is a euphemism for what almost everybody used to call a form of euthanasia-" passive" or "negative" or "indirect" euthanasia-and some thirty years ago, in the course of raising various objections to proposed euthanasia legislation, I advanced the "thin edge of the …