Writing the Rules of Death: State Regulation of Physician-Assisted Suicide

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-216
Author(s):  
Jack Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Lethal Dose ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Medical Treatments ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Death State

If the Supreme Court affirms either Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington or Quill v. Vacco, state legislatures will be presented with a new and unwelcome task: regulating physician-assisted suicide (PAS). This article focuses on the states task of specific policy making in light of the due process reasoning in Compassion in Dying and the equal protection reasoning in Quill. Policy makers must try to predict whether a particular regulation would in practice achieve its intended objective. They must also try to predict whether the regulation would survive constitutional review if challenged. Finally, they must consider the extent to which they could, or should, maintain two different regulatory regimes: a more permissive one for decisions to forgo life-sustaining medical treatments, and a more restrictive one for decisions to obtain a prescription for a lethal dose of medication. This last issue will be especially challenging if the equal protection analysis in Quill prevails.

Montana's courting of physician aid in dying: Could Des Moines follow suit?

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 2-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur G. Svenson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Life Support ◽  
Lethal Dose ◽  
Terminally Ill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Equal Protection ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Aid In Dying

Montana recently joined Oregon and Washington as the only states in the nation to legalize the choice among terminally ill adults to hasten death by self-administering a lethal dose of drugs prescribed by a physician. Unlike Oregon and Washington, however, Montana's legalization of physician aid in dying (PAID) resulted not from public consideration of a statewide initiative, but from the judicial resolution of a lawsuit, Baxter v. Montana. As originally conceived, a trial judge reasoned that the unenumerated right to PAID is embraced by enumerated state constitutional rights to privacy and dignity. On appeal, Montana's supreme court jettisoned this construct, and, in its place, fashioned a legal home for PAID out of state homicide, consent defense, and end-of-life statutes. Central to this court's statutory rendering is the finding that state law, allowing terminally ill Montanans sustained by life support to withdraw such treatment and die, discriminates against terminally ill Montanans not sustained by life support who seek death; these classes are similar, the justices reckoned, entitling both to choose death. This analysis examines Montana's courting of PAID, offering textual examination of state trial and appellate court opinions, an accounting of legal strategies advanced in amici curiae briefs, and commentary about the problems and prospects with Baxter's holding. I argue, ultimately, that the equality principles statutorily conceived in Baxter (1) could be parroted in the vast majority of states that both criminalize assisted suicide and enumerate constitutional equal protection guarantees, and (2) could replace sub silentio the equal protection paradigm applied to “physician-assisted suicide” by the United States Supreme Court in its landmark Vacco v. Quill ruling.

Segmentation of physician-assisted suicide as a niche tourism market: An Initial Exploration

2021 ◽  
pp. 109634802110116
Author(s):  
Jun Wen ◽  
Edmund Goh ◽  
Chung-En Yu
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Emerging Market ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Target Groups ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Thematic Content Analysis ◽  
Specific Target ◽  
Initial Exploration

Suicide travel, in which potential suicide candidates visit certain destinations to perform physician-assisted suicide (PAS), is an emerging topic in tourism. Despite noted discrepancies between suicide travel and traditional definitions of tourism, PAS practices in tourism have gained the attention of scholars and practitioners. This type of travel is inherently complex, and its segmentation remains ambiguous. This study examines a sample of PAS-related videos and viewer comments to identify relevant travel segments. Based on two rounds of thematic content analysis, the resultant segmentation offers a preliminary perspective on this emerging market. Theoretically, this study is among the first to provide a comprehensive overview of the roles of PAS practices in tourism in terms of specific target groups. Practically, the findings offer novel insight for industry practitioners and policy makers.

Ancestors, Computers, and Other Mixed Messages: Ambiguity and Euthanasia in Japan

2001 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
SUSAN ORPETT LONG
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Norms ◽  
Ordinary People ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Societal Level ◽  
Mixed Messages

Ethical questions about end-of-life treatment present themselves at two levels. In clinical situations, patients, families, and healthcare workers sift through ambivalent feelings and conflicting values as they try to resolve questions in particular circumstances. In a very different way, at the societal level, policy makers, lawyers, and bioethicists attempt to determine the best policies and laws to regulate practices about which there are a variety of deeply held beliefs. In the United States we have tried a number of ways to resolve the societal-level issues. We have ignored them, argued to try to convince others of our beliefs, voted to let the majority determine what is right or wrong, and turned to the courts to decide, as in the cases of Karen Ann Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan, and Jack Kervorkian. Yet none of these approaches has yet left us with comfortable, unambiguous cultural norms about issues such as euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, which are readily assumed by “ordinary people” as they face individual and interpersonal dilemmas.

Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: The Pharmacist's Perspective

2000 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark E. Schneiderhan
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Lethal Dose ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Critical Position ◽  
End Of Life Decisions ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Effective Use ◽  
Pharmaceutical Agents ◽  
Special Responsibility

Pharmacists are in a critical position when pharmaceutical agents are prescribed for the purpose of physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia and they may need to decide whether dispensing a lethal dose of a medication is ethically and morally acceptable for a patient. In many cases, pharmacists may not even be aware that prescriptions are intended for physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia. Pharmacists have a special responsibility to protect patients who are contemplating end-of-life decisions such as physician- assisted suicide and euthanasia. Pharmaceutical care (“Responsible provision of drug therapy for the purpose of achieving definite outcomes that improve a patient's quality of life … ”) requires that the pharmacist not only understands the medications but also the individual patient and the complexities of their lives and suffering. Only in this way can pharmacists provide safe and effective use of medications for the patients they serve.

scholarly journals Constitutional Aspects of Physician-Assisted Suicide After Lee v. Oregon

1997 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-96
Author(s):  
Simon M. Canick
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Bodily Integrity ◽  
Equal Protection Clause ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Ill Adults ◽  
The U.S

Dying is personal. And it is profound. For many, the thought of an ignoble end, steeped in decay, is abhorrent. A quiet, proud death, bodily integrity intact, is a matter of extreme consequence.—Justice William BrennanTwo recent circuit court decisions have reinvigorated the debate over the constitutional, practical and ethical ramifications of physician-assisted suicide. In Compassion in Dying v. Washington, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a liberty interest exists in choosing the time and manner of one’s death. The court found this right to outweigh all asserted state interests, and concluded that, with respect to competent, terminally ill adults, Washington’s prohibition of assisted suicide violates the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling effectively strikes down laws against assisted suicide in all of the states in the Ninth Circuit.In April 1996, in Quill v. Vacco, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that New York’s prohibition of assisted suicide violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

A Middle Ground on Physician-Assisted Suicide

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
James A. Tulsky ◽  
Ann Alpers ◽  
Bernard Lo
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Lethal Dose ◽  
Terminally Ill ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Moral Code ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Terminally Ill Patients ◽  
Criminal Charges ◽  
Legal Defense ◽  
Court Of Appeal

“[A] murder prosecution is a poor way to design an ethical and moral code for doctors,” observed the California Court of Appeal in 1983. Yet, physicians who have chosen to help terminally ill patients to commit suicide have trespassed on illegal ground. When skilled medical care fails to relieve the pain of terminally ill patients, some people believe that physicians may assist in these suicides. Others reject any kind of physician involvement. The debate on assisted suiczide and active euthanasia has focused on whether these acts can ever be acceptable. We propose to shift the debate to a less divisive issue: whether a caring physician who provides a suffering and ill patient with a prescription for a lethal dose of medication should be prosecuted as a felon. Even assisted suicide's opponents may object to such criminal prosecution. We propose to modify existing criminal laws to give physicians who assist their terminally ill patients in suicide, under carefully defined circumstances, a legal defense against criminal charges.

scholarly journals Currently Accepted Practices That Are Known to Lead to Death, and PAS: Is There an Ethically Relevant Difference?

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 375-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS A. CAVANAUGH
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Lethal Dose ◽  
Medical Intervention ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Relevant Difference ◽  
Relieve Pain

A number of common and generally noncontroversial practices in the care of patients at the end of life lead to their deaths. For example, physicians honor a patient's refusal of medical intervention even when doing so leads to the patient's death. Similarly, with a patient's or surrogate's consent, physicians administer sedatives in order to relieve pain and distress at the end of life, even when it is known that doing so will cause the patient's death. In contemporary U.S. public policy, these practices are accepted as ethical and legal while physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is—for the most part—rejected in current U.S. law and public policy. Some think, however, that if one accepts practices that are known to lead to a patient's death, then one cannot reasonably reject a patient's request for a lethal dose of medication so that she may kill herself (PAS).

Euthanasia and Related Practices Worldwide

Crisis ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Kelleher † ◽  
Derek Chambers ◽  
Paul Corcoran ◽  
Helen S Keeley ◽  
Eileen Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
International Association ◽  
Active Euthanasia ◽  
Physician Assisted Suicide ◽  
Passive Euthanasia ◽  
Medical Practitioners ◽  
General Acceptance ◽  
International Importance ◽  
Controversial Area ◽  
Active And Passive Euthanasia

The present paper examines the occurrence of matters relating to the ending of life, including active euthanasia, which is, technically speaking, illegal worldwide. Interest in this most controversial area is drawn from many varied sources, from legal and medical practitioners to religious and moral ethicists. In some countries, public interest has been mobilized into organizations that attempt to influence legislation relating to euthanasia. Despite the obvious international importance of euthanasia, very little is known about the extent of its practice, whether passive or active, voluntary or involuntary. This examination is based on questionnaires completed by 49 national representatives of the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP), dealing with legal and religious aspects of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, as well as suicide. A dichotomy between the law and medical practices relating to the end of life was uncovered by the results of the survey. In 12 of the 49 countries active euthanasia is said to occur while a general acceptance of passive euthanasia was reported to be widespread. Clearly, definition is crucial in making the distinction between active and passive euthanasia; otherwise, the entire concept may become distorted, and legal acceptance may become more widespread with the effect of broadening the category of individuals to whom euthanasia becomes an available option. The “slippery slope” argument is briefly considered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document