Skip to main content
Log in

Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States: Confronting Legal and Medical Reasoning – Part Two

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the United States, judicialrulings that unrealistically addressed the complexityof cases and demonstrated limited understanding ofprinciples, helped to create a legal quagmire whichlegislatures had to confront. Moreover, thelegislative response was often slow and inadequate interms of both the scope and clarity of the laws. However, since the 1970s, progress has been made onmany fronts, particularly in regard to advancedirectives dealing with end-of-life decisions. Thedebate over physician-assisted suicide has spawned arepetition of moral and legal arguments. Thoseagainst legalization have failed to make a realisticappraisal of the dilemmas facing patients and theirfamilies in an age of technological medicine deliveredin the context of the marketplace. The underlyingproblem is a system in dire need of reform that willno longer treat health care as a commodity of themarketplace and provide universal health care. Terminal care as an integral part of health care willsubstantially benefit from such reforms because amajor obstacle to comprehensive palliative care is thecondition of the present system.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Cruzan, By Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S.W.2d 408 (1988).

  2. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 265-287; 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2847-2855 (1990).

  3. Cruzan, 497 U.S. 261, 301-330; 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2867-2876.

  4. Cruzan, 497 U.S. 261, 331-351; 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2878-2892.

  5. Rizzo RF. The living will: does it protect the rights of the terminally ill? New York State J Med 1989; 89: 72-79.

    Google Scholar 

  6. National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, 9B ULA 609, 1987.

  7. Areen J. The legal status of consent obtained from families to withhold or withdraw treatment. JAMA 1987; 258: 229-234.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Becker JA. Healthcare surrogacy laws: implications for gay and lesbian families. U. of Louisville Journal of Family Law 1997; 35: 1-32. [LEXIS-NEXIS Link]

    Google Scholar 

  9. Choice in Dying, Inc., 2000. http://www.choices.org.

  10. Ahronheim JC, Morrison RS, Baskin SA, Morris J, Meier DE. Treatment of the dying in the acute care hospital. Arch Intern Med 1996; 15(18): 2094-2100.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hanson LC, Danis M, Garrett JM, Mutran E. Physicians' Willingness to use lifesustaining treatment. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 785-789.

    Google Scholar 

  12. The SUPPORT Principal Investigators. A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. JAMA 1995; 274: 1591-1598.

    Google Scholar 

  13. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forego Life-sustaining Treatment, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Death with Dignity Act, Ore. Rev. Stat. Sections 127.800 et seq. (1997).

  15. Lee v. Oregon, 107 F.3d 1382 (CA9 1997).

  16. Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, S. 1272, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999). http://www.loc.gov.

  17. Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, H.R. 2260, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999). http://www.loc.gov.

  18. American Medical Association's position on the “Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999”. http://www.ama-assn.org. (3/7/2000).

  19. Washington, et al., Petitioners v. Harold Glucksberg et al., 117 S. Ct. 2258, 2262-2271; 138 L. Ed.2d 772, 782-792 (1997).

  20. Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General of New York, et al., Petitioners v. Timothy E. Quill et al., 117 S. Ct. 2293, 2298-2301; 138 L. Ed. 834, 842-846 (1997).

  21. Compassion In Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996).

  22. Quill v. Vacco, 80 F.3d 716 (2nd Cir. 1996).

  23. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, et al. v. Robert P. Casey et al., 505 U.S. 833, 851; 112 S. Ct. 2807; 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992).

  24. Quill TE, Brock DW. The rule of double effect-a critique of its role in end-of-life decision making. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1768-1771.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rachels J. Active and Passive Euthanasia. N Engl J Med 1975; 292: 78-80.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Alpers A, Lo B. The Supreme Court addresses physician-assisted suicide: can its ruling improve palliative care? Arch Fam Med 1999; 8: 200-205.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Annas GJ. The bell tolls for a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1098-1103.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rizzo, R.F. Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States: Confronting Legal and Medical Reasoning – Part Two. Theor Med Bioeth 21, 291–304 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009947732023

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009947732023

Navigation