Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Changes of climate in the development of practical ethics

  • Comment
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References and notes

  1. Smith, W.J. (2000) Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, Encounter Books, San Francisco, CA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  2. In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, esp. at 40.

  3. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 110 S.Ct. at 2851. The protection of a liberty interest is stressed in this case.

  4. See Meisel, Alan (1992) The Legal Consensus about Forgoing Life-Sustaining Treatment: Its Status and its Prospects, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2: 309–345.

    Google Scholar 

  5. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington, No. 94-35534, filed March 6, 1996; United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Vacco v. Quill, No. 95-7028, decided April 2, 1996; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 6215. See, further, Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington, 850 F. Supp. 1454 (W.D. Wash. 1994); U.S. D. Ct., W.D. Wash., No. C94-119R, decided May 3 and overturned March 9, 1995 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in an opinion written by Judge John T. Noonan. Compassion in Dying v. Washington, No. 94-35534 (U.S. App. March 9, 1995). See also Goldberg, Stephanie B. (July, 1994) Death by Choice: Two Courts Clash on Constitutional Right to Assisted Suicide, ABA Journal 80: 73; Robichaud, Todd David (1994) Toward a More Perfect Union: A Federal Cause of Action for Physician Aid-in-Dying, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 27: 521–64.

  6. United States Supreme Court, Vacco v. Quill, 117 S.Ct. 2293 (1997) and Washington v. Glucksberg, 117 S.Ct. 2258 (1997); Nos. 95-1858 and 96-110, as decided June 26, 1997.

  7. Oregon. Legislature. Measure No. 16. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act (1994). Measure 16 was first approved by voters in a November 8, 1994 referendum. Three years later voters reaffirmed what they had previously passed under which physicians are legally allowed to provide lethal medication: On November 4, 1997 the voters rejected Measure 51, which would have repealed Measure 16.

  8. Meisel, Alan (1992) The Legal Consensus about Forgoing Life-Sustaining Treatment, op. cit.; Gostin, Lawrence O. (1997) 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’, Journal of the American Medical Association 278 (Nov. 12): 1523–1528; and Meier, Diane E., et al. (1998) “On the Frequency of Requests for Physician Assisted Suicide in American Medicine,” New England Journal of Medicine 338: 1193–1201.

    Google Scholar 

  9. On the importance of the refusal-request distinction, see Bernat, James L., Gert, Bernard and Mogielnicki, R. Peter (1993) Patient Refusal of Hydration and Nutrition, Archives of Internal Medicine 153: 2723–28; Gert, Bernat, and Mogielnicki (1994) Distinguishing between Patients’ Refusals and Requests, Hastings Center Report 24 (July/August): 13–15; and Gert, Bernat, and Mogielnicki (1995) “The Distinction between Active and Passive Euthanasia,” Archives of Internal Medicine 155: 1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, Healy Building, 4th Floor, 20057, Washington, DC

    Tom L. Beauchamp

Authors
  1. Tom L. Beauchamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beauchamp, T.L. Changes of climate in the development of practical ethics. SCI ENG ETHICS 8, 131–138 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0014-5

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-002-0014-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation