The “Right to Die”: A case study in American lawmaking

Author:

Meisel Alan

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Law,Health Policy

Reference81 articles.

1. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote Professor of Bioethics, and Law and Psychiatry, and Director, Center for Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. USA.

2. Barber v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. Rptr. 484 (Ct. App. 1983).

3. Strachan v. John F. Kennedy Memorial Hosp., 538 A.2d 346 (N.J. 1988).

4. Cruzan v. Director, 497 U.S. 261, 323 (1990) (Stevens, I, dissenting), quotingCruzan v. Harmon, 760 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. 1988) (Blackmar, J., dissenting). See alsoCruzan v. Director, supra, at 314 n.15 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (‘Such decisions are made every day, without state participation’);Browning v. Herbert, 568 So. 2d 4, 15 (Fla. 1990) (‘The decision to terminate artificial life-sustaining measures is being made over and over in nursing homes, hospitals, and private homes in this nation. It is being made painfully by loving family members, concerned guardians, or surrogates, in conjunction with the advice of ethical and caring physicians or other health care providers.’);Estate of Longeway v. Community Convalescent Gr., 549 N.E.2d 292, 295 (111. 1989) (‘Frequently, the courts are not consulted at all. There is reliable information that for many years, members of a patient’s family, together with doctors and clergy, have made decisions to withdraw life-sustaining equipment from incompetent, hopelessly ill patients without seeking judicial approval.’);In re Spring, 399 N.E.2d 493, 499 n.9 (Mass. App. Ct. 1979) (The importance of the role of the family and the doctor is highlighted by the self- evident fact that the vast majority of treatment decisions relative to persons who are incompetent by reason of senility or retardation are made for them, by their family and the doctor, without court proceedings. This practice is sanctioned not merely by tradition but by the institutional limitations in the ability of courts to make day-to-day treatment decisions, even if restricted to treatments of a potentially life-saving or life- prolonging nature.’);In re Torres, 357 N.W.2d 332, 341 n.4 (Minn. 1984) (‘At oral argument it was disclosed that on an average about 10 life-support systems are disconnected weekly in Minnesota.’);In re Storar, 420 N.E.2d 64, 75 (N.Y. 1981) (Jones, J., dissenting) (‘There is reliable information that for many years physicians and members of patients’ families, often in consultation with religious counselors, have in actuality been making decisions to withhold or to withdraw life support procedures from incurably ill patients incapable of making the critical decisions for themselves.’).

5. In re Quinlan, 348 A.2d 801, 806 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1975).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3