Journal of Religion and Health

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 125–137 | Cite as

The right to die at the end of your life

  • David Belgum
Article
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

The Missouri case of Nancy Cruzan brings into sharp focus the medical ethics issue of the right to privacy. It also raises the need for definition of life ranging from cellular to personal. What is it about forced feeding that transforms it into an extraordinary means of nonfunctional treatment? There is the question of balancing benefit and cost (whether personal or financial). Currently we are confronted by the problem of balancing human rights violations against efforts to be “helpful” by the use of heroic medical measures, all of this against the background of ever-changing medical technology.

Keywords

Ethic Issue Medical Ethic Medical Technology Medical Measure Sharp Focus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cruzan v. Harmon, Estate No. CV384-9P, slip op. (Cir. Ct., Jasper Co., Mo.), July 27, 1988.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cruzan v. Harmon, Mo.Sup.Ct., No. 70813, 11/16/88; 57LW2324, 12/6/88.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cruzan v. Harmon, Estate No. CV384-9P, slip op.,op. cit., p. 4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    195 Cal-App. 3d 1075, (Oct. 29, 1987) Elizabeth Bouvia, Plaintiff v. County of Los Angeles,et al., p. 5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Kane, F. I., “Keeping Elizabeth Bouvia Alive for the Public Good,”Hastings Center Report, 1985,15, 6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Annas, G. J., “When Suicide Prevention Becomes Brutality: The Case of Elizabeth Bouvia,”Hastings Center Report, 1984,14, 2, 46.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matthew 10:28.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baby Jane Doe, 476 US610 (1986) p. 610 ff.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. University Hospital of the State of New York at Stony Brook, Defendant, Parents of Baby Jane Doe, Intervenor Defendants. U.S. District Court, E. D., New York, Long Island District, Nov. 17, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    476 US610 (1986), p. 610.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institutes of Religion and Health 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Belgum
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Iowa School of Religion and College of Medicine in Iowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations