Deciding life and death in the courtroom. From Quinlan to Cruzan, Glucksberg, and Vacco--a brief history and analysis of constitutional protection of the 'right to die'
L. O. Gostin
Georgetown/Johns Hopkins University Program on Law and Public Health, Washington, DC, USA. gostin@law.georgetown.edu
This article analyzes judicial determinations on the "right to die" from
Quinlan to Cruzan, Glucksberg, and Vacco. The body of law known as
right-to-die cases extends ordinary treatment refusal doctrine to
end-of-life decisions. The courts, having affirmed a right to refuse
life-sustaining treatment, held that certain categorical distinctions that
had been drawn lacked a rational basis. No rational distinction could be
made between competent vs incompetent patients, withholding vs withdrawing
treatment, and ordinary vs extraordinary treatment. The courts, however,
had persistently affirmed one categorical distinction: between withdrawing
life-sustaining treament on the one hand and active euthanasia or
physician-assisted dying on the other. In Washington v Glucksberg and Vacco
v Quill, the Supreme Court unanimously held that physician-assisted suicide
is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Constitution.
Notably, five members of the Court wrote or joined in concurring opinions
that took a more liberal view. The Court powerfully approved aggressive
palliation of pain. The Supreme Court, hinting that it would find state
legalization of physician-assisted suicide constitutional, invited the
nation to pursue an earnest debate on physician assistance in the dying
process.
Physician-assisted suicide: a legitimate medical practice?
Gostin
JAMA 2006;295:1941-1943.
FULL TEXT
Ethics, the Constitution, and the Dying Process: The Case of Theresa Marie Schiavo
Gostin
JAMA 2005;293:2403-2407.
FULL TEXT
On the Dilemma of Enigmatic Refusal of Life-Saving Therapy
Bramstedt and Arroliga
Chest 2004;126:630-633.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Illusion of Patient Choice in End-of-Life Decisions
Sullivan
AJGP 2002;10:365-372.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Institutional Ethics Committees
Committee on Bioethics
Pediatrics 2001;107:205-209.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Legal Aspects of Withholding and Withdrawing Life Support from Critically Ill Patients in the United States and Providing Palliative Care to Them
LUCE and ALPERS
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2000;162:2029-2032.
FULL TEXT
Patients' Knowledge of Options at the End of Life: Ignorance in the Face of Death
Silveira et al.
JAMA 2000;284:2483-2488.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Ethical Issues Surrounding Limitation and Withdrawal of Support in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: Vose LA, Nelson RM Ethical issues surrounding limitation and withdrawal of support in the pediatric intensive care unit J Intensive Care Med 1999, 14 220-230
Vose and Nelson
J Intensive Care Med 1999;14:220-230.
Assisted Suicide and Alternatives in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Rowland
NEJM 1998;339:987-989.
FULL TEXT
Facing Requests for Physician-Assisted Suicide: Toward a Practical and Principled Clinical Skill Set
Emanuel
JAMA 1998;280:643-647.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Deciding Life and Death in the Courtroom: Debate and Clarification
Farrell et al.
JAMA 1998;279:1259-1261.
FULL TEXT
