This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor.—It is easier to find dogmatic statements than guiding principles in the assisted-suicide debate. I am inclined to rely on my intuition in such situations, and work backward to a principle. I do not wish to belittle the need for legal definitions. In fact, these often clarify precedent and serve to make us all pause where we once felt so certain.

But, I must place the legal system in perspective in this debate. Mr Gostin's article¹ states, "The judiciary has transformed not only the practice of medicine and the rights of patients, but has also shaped societal values." Rights are inherent and need to be defined. The judiciary cannot and should not try to transform them. The judiciary also cannot shape societal values. It has a duty to reflect societal values (common law?). On the issue in question, however, this inflated view of "judiciary impact" fails to . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

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'
Lawrence O. Gostin
JAMA. 1997;278(18):1523-1528.
ABSTRACT