Law Commons^™

A History Of The Law Of Assisted Dying In The United States, Alan Meisel

Articles

The slow growth in the number of states that have enacted legislation to permit what is often referred to as “death with dignity” legislation—and more frequently referred to popularly as “physician assisted suicide” laws—has begun to accelerate in the past few years since the enactment of the first such statute in Oregon in 1994.

Like much other social reform legislation, there is a long history behind it. In this case, the history in the United States dates back at least to the latter part of the nineteenth century. Not until the 1980s, however, did these efforts gain any traction in …

Antecedent Law And Ethics Of Aid In Dying, Alan Meisel

Articles

Scholarly discussion of physician aid in dying – physicians actively aiding patients in ending their lives – has noticeably increased in recent years. While conversations and examinations of end-of-life treatment have been ongoing for decades, the antecedent law and ethics of aid in dying that have developed in the United States have recently moved into the spotlight. In this essay, written for a symposium at Quinnipiac School of Law, the author takes his audience on a brief journey through the history of end-of-life decision-making in the U.S., beginning with the early days of the Karen Quinlan case in 1976 and …

Can Glucksberg Survive Lawrence? Another Look At The End Of Life And Personal Autonomy, Yale Kamisar

Articles

In Washington v. Glucksberg, the Court declined to find a right to physician-assisted suicide ("PAS") in the Constitution. Not a single Justice dissented. One would expect such a ruling to be quite secure. But Lawrence v. Texas, holding that a state cannot make consensual homosexual conduct a crime, is not easy to reconcile with Glucksberg. Lawrence certainly takes a much more expansive view of substantive due process than did Glucksberg. It is conceivable that the five Justices who made up the Lawrence majority-all of whom still sit on the Court-might overrule Glucksberg. For various reasons, …

A Look Back On A Half-Century Of Teaching, Writing And Speaking About Criminal Law And Criminal Procedure, Yale Kamisar

Articles

When I look back at my academic career, I realize that, as hard as I tried to plan things, various events often overrode my plans.

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.

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?

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.

Making Sausage: The Ninth Circuit's Opinion, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

As I write, the Supreme Court has just agreed to hear Compassion in Dying v. Washington and Quill v. Vacco, the two cases in which United States circuit courts of appeals held that a state may not constitutionally prohibit physicians from helping a terminally ill person who wishes to commit suicide to do so. These cases have already received lavish comment and criticism, and no doubt the Supreme Court's opinion will garner even more. Reasonably enough, most of this analysis addresses the merits of physician-assisted suicide as social policy. I, here, want to talk about how setting bioethical policy …

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: A Bad Idea, 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. I shall discuss five common reasons - and explain why I do not find any of them convincing.

The 'Right To Die': On Drawing (And Erasing) Lines, Yale Kamisar

Articles

Until this year, no state or federal appellate court had ever held that there was a right to assisted suicide no matter how narrow the circumstances or stringent the conditions. In 1996, however, within the span of a single month, two federal courts of appeals so held; in an 8-3 majority of the Ninth Circuit (sitting en banc) in Compassion in Dying v. Washington and a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit in Quill v. Vacco. What heartened proponents of a right to physician-assisted suicide even more, and pleased those resistant to the idea even less, was that the two …

Helping The Grim Reaper: Oregon's Measure 16 And Three Court Cases Put Assisted Suicide On A Fast Track To Supreme Court, Yale Kamisar, N. Schuyler, T. Balmer

Articles

Last November, Oregon's voters passed by initiative the first physician-assisted suicide law in the nation. Measure 16 authorizes physicians to prescribe lethal medicaiton for competent, terminally ill adults if they make three separate requests, wait 15 days to reconsider, and get a second medical opinion of their prognosis. The new law was challenged immediately on several legal grounds; plaintiffs have won a preliminary injunction, and arguments have been scheduled in cross motions for summary jugement. Lee v. Oregon (D Or. No. 94-6467-ITO).

The Oregon court's decision will mark the fourth time in the past year that the once-obscure issue of …

Against Assisted Suicide - Even A Very Limited Form (Symposium: Assisted Suicide, Health Care And Medical Treatment Choices), Yale Kamisar

Articles

Professor Robert Sedler is a leading constitutional law professor and a well-known civil liberties lawyer. I think he is right about many things. To cite but one example, I think he was right when he led the ACLU's successful legal attack on certain University of Michigan restrictions on "hate speech."' But I cannot agree with him about physician-assisted suicide, no matter how narrowly he frames the issue.2

Assisted Suicide And Euthanasia: The Cases Are In The Pipeline, Yale Kamisar

Articles

When I first wrote about this subject 36 years ago, the chance that any state would legalize assisted suicide or active voluntary euthanasia seemed minuscule. The possibility that any court would find these activities protected by the Due Process Clause seemed so remote as to be almost inconceivable. Not anymore. Before this decade ends, at least several states probably will decriminalize assisted suicide and/or active voluntary euthanasia. [Editor's note: In November, Oregon became the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, allowing doctors to prescribe lethal medication for competent, terminally ill adults who request it.] A distinct possibility also exists that …

The 'Right To Die': A Catchy But Confusing Slogan, Yale Kamisar

Articles

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, and more misunderstood.

Should Active Euthanasia Be Legalized? No: Preserve Traditional Restraints, Yale Kamisar

Articles

The distinction between letting people die and killing them by lethal injection is now an integral part of the medico-legal landscape. This is the compromise we have arrived at in the struggle to take a humane approach toward seriously ill patients while still preserving as many traditional restraints against killing as we possibly can. This may be neither the logician's or the philosopher's way to resolve the controversy, but it may nevertheless be a defensible pragmatic way to do so.

Active V. Passive Euthanasia: Why Keep The Distinction?, Yale Kamisar

Articles

In the past two decades, we have witnessed a "sea change in public, medical, and legislative judgments" about "letting die" and the "right to die." But it is no less true today than it was 35 years ago, when I first wrote about this subject, that in Anglo-American jurisprudence active euthanasia (what used to be called "mercy killing") is murder.

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 …

Who Should Live-Or Die? Who Should Decide?, Yale Kamisar

Articles

TRIAL asked Professor Kamisar questions on legal and ethical issues surrounding the right to die, a subject attracting increasing interest across the country and around the world.

Rights Discourse And Neonatal Euthanasia, Carl E. Schneider

Articles

Hard cases, they say, make bad law. Hard cases, we know, can also make revealing law. Hard cases identify the problems we have not found a way of solving. They reveal ways the law's goals conflict. They force us to articulate our assumptions and to examine our modes of discourse and reasoning. If there was ever a hard case for the law, it is the question of whether, how, and by whom it should be decided to allow newborn children who are severely retarded mentally or severely damaged physically to die. For many years, the law has not had to …

Some Non-Religious Views Against Proposed 'Mercy-Killing' Legislation Part Ii, Yale Kamisar

Articles

There have been and there will continue to be compelling circumstances when a doctor or relative or friend will violate The Law On The Books and, more often than not, receive protection from The Law In Action. But this is not to deny that there are other occasions when The Law On The Books operates to stay the hand of all concerned, among them situations where the patient is in fact ( 1 ) presently incurable, ( 2) beyond the aid of any respite which may come along in his life expectancy, suffering ( 3 ) intolerable and ( 4) …

Some Non-Religious Views Against Proposed 'Mercy-Killing' Legislation Part I, Yale Kamisar

Articles

In essence, Williams' specific proposal is that death be authorized for a person in the above situation "by giving the medical practitioner a wide discretion and trusting to his good sense." This, I submit, raises too great a risk of abuse and mistake to warrant a change in the existing law. That a proposal entails risk of mistake is hardly a conclusive reason against it. But neither is it irrelevant. Under any euthanasia program the consequences of mistake, of course, are always fatal. As I shall endeavor to show, the incidence of mistake of one kind or another is likely …