Death and the Court

The legal reasoning behind the US Supreme Court's rejection of the constitutionality of an individual's right to "die with dignity" is investigated. Overviews of the plaintiffs' respective arguments & the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decisions in Washington...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Hastings Center report 1997-09, Vol.27 (5), p.25-29
Main Author: Capron, Alexander Morgan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Assisted suicide
Bioethics
Care and treatment
Constitutional law
Decisions
Euthanasia
Government Regulation
Humans
Intention
Judicial Decisions
Legal aspects
Life Support Systems
Medical ethics
Medical sector
Personal Autonomy
Persons
Physician and patient
Quality of Life
Right to Die
Right to Die - legislation & jurisprudence
Suicide
Suicide, Assisted - legislation & jurisprudence
Supreme court
Supreme Court Decisions
Terminally ill
Treatment Refusal - legislation & jurisprudence
United States
United States Supreme Court
Value of Life
Vulnerable Populations
Withholding Treatment
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 29
container_issue 5
container_start_page 25
container_title The Hastings Center report
container_volume 27
creator Capron, Alexander Morgan
description The legal reasoning behind the US Supreme Court's rejection of the constitutionality of an individual's right to "die with dignity" is investigated. Overviews of the plaintiffs' respective arguments & the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decisions in Washington v. Glucksberg & Vacco v. Quill are provided. Washington raised two significant issues: state involvement in quality-of-life judgments & state protection of unprotected groups from abuse & neglect. Vacco raised the issues of risks initiated by assisted suicide to important parties & of doctoral intent. Several justices have entertained further exploration of related issues, eg, legal restrictions of pain control & differences between eschewing life-support technology & physician-assisted suicide. It is concluded that the Court's decisions have permitted the public discussion of alternative end-of-life care programs & the legal fate of physician-assisted suicide. J. W. Parker
doi_str_mv 10.2307/3527800
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79443608</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A20132042</galeid><sourcerecordid>A20132042</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g5301-3b007f559602f9f16b2fd7af5440f4724cddf603f7bf49b480964fdbcbfee99f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN0s9v0zAUB3ALgUbZEAfOSBUHtMPCnv38Iz5WHXSFap3EgN0sJ7GzbGky4kSw_x5PqzYVVWz2wZL9ke339CXkDYWPDEEdomAqBXhGRlQIllAuz5-TEYDGBBD5S_IqhEuIg6e4Q3Y0piglH5G3R872F2PbFOP-wo2n7dD1e-SFt3Vwr9frLvn--dPZ9DhZLGfz6WSRlAKBJpgBKC-ElsC89lRmzBfKesE5eK4Yz4vCS0CvMs91xlPQkvsiyzPvnNYed8mHu3uvu_bX4EJvVlXIXV3bxrVDMEpzjhLSR6GkgokUxaNQaBX_RSHC_f9CqiSVmqG-pe__oZexSU1sjGGMYco08ogO7lBpa2eqxrd9Z_PSNa6zdds4X8XtCQOKDDiLPNnC4yzcqsq3-f0NH0nv_vSlHUIwX0_nT6Xz5Y-n0nS22KAH22je1rUrnYmxmC43-Lt1z4Zs5Qpz3VUr292Ydewe6v8d67y5P6ZgbsNs1mE2x5NvZzRl9MFXIT577213ZaRCJczPk5k55-roy0IyQ_Ev1-Pq5Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>222382934</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Death and the Court</title><source>Art, Design and Architecture Collection</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Capron, Alexander Morgan</creator><creatorcontrib>Capron, Alexander Morgan</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[The legal reasoning behind the US Supreme Court's rejection of the constitutionality of an individual's right to "die with dignity" is investigated. Overviews of the plaintiffs' respective arguments & the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decisions in Washington v. Glucksberg & Vacco v. Quill are provided. Washington raised two significant issues: state involvement in quality-of-life judgments & state protection of unprotected groups from abuse & neglect. Vacco raised the issues of risks initiated by assisted suicide to important parties & of doctoral intent. Several justices have entertained further exploration of related issues, eg, legal restrictions of pain control & differences between eschewing life-support technology & physician-assisted suicide. It is concluded that the Court's decisions have permitted the public discussion of alternative end-of-life care programs & the legal fate of physician-assisted suicide. J. W. Parker]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0093-0334</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-146X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/3527800</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9383664</identifier><identifier>CODEN: HSCRAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Assisted suicide ; Bioethics ; Care and treatment ; Constitutional law ; Decisions ; Euthanasia ; Government Regulation ; Humans ; Intention ; Judicial Decisions ; Legal aspects ; Life Support Systems ; Medical ethics ; Medical sector ; Personal Autonomy ; Persons ; Physician and patient ; Quality of Life ; Right to Die ; Right to Die - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Suicide ; Suicide, Assisted - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; Supreme court ; Supreme Court Decisions ; Terminally ill ; Treatment Refusal - legislation &amp; jurisprudence ; United States ; United States Supreme Court ; Value of Life ; Vulnerable Populations ; Withholding Treatment</subject><ispartof>The Hastings Center report, 1997-09, Vol.27 (5), p.25-29</ispartof><rights>1997 The Hastings Center</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 1997 Hastings Center</rights><rights>Copyright The Hastings Center Sep/Oct 1997</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/222382934/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/222382934?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,12840,21373,27842,27901,27902,33588,33589,33752,34752,34753,43709,44176,73964,74471</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9383664$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Capron, Alexander Morgan</creatorcontrib><title>Death and the Court</title><title>The Hastings Center report</title><addtitle>Hastings Cent Rep</addtitle><description><![CDATA[The legal reasoning behind the US Supreme Court's rejection of the constitutionality of an individual's right to "die with dignity" is investigated. Overviews of the plaintiffs' respective arguments & the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decisions in Washington v. Glucksberg & Vacco v. Quill are provided. Washington raised two significant issues: state involvement in quality-of-life judgments & state protection of unprotected groups from abuse & neglect. Vacco raised the issues of risks initiated by assisted suicide to important parties & of doctoral intent. Several justices have entertained further exploration of related issues, eg, legal restrictions of pain control & differences between eschewing life-support technology & physician-assisted suicide. It is concluded that the Court's decisions have permitted the public discussion of alternative end-of-life care programs & the legal fate of physician-assisted suicide. J. W. Parker]]></description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Assisted suicide</subject><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Decisions</subject><subject>Euthanasia</subject><subject>Government Regulation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intention</subject><subject>Judicial Decisions</subject><subject>Legal aspects</subject><subject>Life Support Systems</subject><subject>Medical ethics</subject><subject>Medical sector</subject><subject>Personal Autonomy</subject><subject>Persons</subject><subject>Physician and patient</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Right to Die</subject><subject>Right to Die - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Suicide</subject><subject>Suicide, Assisted - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Supreme court</subject><subject>Supreme Court Decisions</subject><subject>Terminally ill</subject><subject>Treatment Refusal - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>United States Supreme Court</subject><subject>Value of Life</subject><subject>Vulnerable Populations</subject><subject>Withholding Treatment</subject><issn>0093-0334</issn><issn>1552-146X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqN0s9v0zAUB3ALgUbZEAfOSBUHtMPCnv38Iz5WHXSFap3EgN0sJ7GzbGky4kSw_x5PqzYVVWz2wZL9ke339CXkDYWPDEEdomAqBXhGRlQIllAuz5-TEYDGBBD5S_IqhEuIg6e4Q3Y0piglH5G3R872F2PbFOP-wo2n7dD1e-SFt3Vwr9frLvn--dPZ9DhZLGfz6WSRlAKBJpgBKC-ElsC89lRmzBfKesE5eK4Yz4vCS0CvMs91xlPQkvsiyzPvnNYed8mHu3uvu_bX4EJvVlXIXV3bxrVDMEpzjhLSR6GkgokUxaNQaBX_RSHC_f9CqiSVmqG-pe__oZexSU1sjGGMYco08ogO7lBpa2eqxrd9Z_PSNa6zdds4X8XtCQOKDDiLPNnC4yzcqsq3-f0NH0nv_vSlHUIwX0_nT6Xz5Y-n0nS22KAH22je1rUrnYmxmC43-Lt1z4Zs5Qpz3VUr292Ydewe6v8d67y5P6ZgbsNs1mE2x5NvZzRl9MFXIT577213ZaRCJczPk5k55-roy0IyQ_Ev1-Pq5Q</recordid><startdate>199709</startdate><enddate>199709</enddate><creator>Capron, Alexander Morgan</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Hastings Center</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>8GL</scope><scope>KPI</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88H</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2N</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199709</creationdate><title>Death and the Court</title><author>Capron, Alexander Morgan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g5301-3b007f559602f9f16b2fd7af5440f4724cddf603f7bf49b480964fdbcbfee99f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Assisted suicide</topic><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Decisions</topic><topic>Euthanasia</topic><topic>Government Regulation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intention</topic><topic>Judicial Decisions</topic><topic>Legal aspects</topic><topic>Life Support Systems</topic><topic>Medical ethics</topic><topic>Medical sector</topic><topic>Personal Autonomy</topic><topic>Persons</topic><topic>Physician and patient</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Right to Die</topic><topic>Right to Die - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Suicide</topic><topic>Suicide, Assisted - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Supreme court</topic><topic>Supreme Court Decisions</topic><topic>Terminally ill</topic><topic>Treatment Refusal - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>United States Supreme Court</topic><topic>Value of Life</topic><topic>Vulnerable Populations</topic><topic>Withholding Treatment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Capron, Alexander Morgan</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Gale In Context: High School</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Global Issues</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Religion Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design and Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Arts &amp; Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Religion Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Hastings Center report</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Capron, Alexander Morgan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Death and the Court</atitle><jtitle>The Hastings Center report</jtitle><addtitle>Hastings Cent Rep</addtitle><date>1997-09</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>25</spage><epage>29</epage><pages>25-29</pages><issn>0093-0334</issn><eissn>1552-146X</eissn><coden>HSCRAS</coden><abstract><![CDATA[The legal reasoning behind the US Supreme Court's rejection of the constitutionality of an individual's right to "die with dignity" is investigated. Overviews of the plaintiffs' respective arguments & the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decisions in Washington v. Glucksberg & Vacco v. Quill are provided. Washington raised two significant issues: state involvement in quality-of-life judgments & state protection of unprotected groups from abuse & neglect. Vacco raised the issues of risks initiated by assisted suicide to important parties & of doctoral intent. Several justices have entertained further exploration of related issues, eg, legal restrictions of pain control & differences between eschewing life-support technology & physician-assisted suicide. It is concluded that the Court's decisions have permitted the public discussion of alternative end-of-life care programs & the legal fate of physician-assisted suicide. J. W. Parker]]></abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>9383664</pmid><doi>10.2307/3527800</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0093-0334
ispartof The Hastings Center report, 1997-09, Vol.27 (5), p.25-29
issn 0093-0334
1552-146X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79443608
source Art, Design and Architecture Collection; Social Science Premium Collection; Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection; PAIS Index; JSTOR Archival Journals; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Adult
Assisted suicide
Bioethics
Care and treatment
Constitutional law
Decisions
Euthanasia
Government Regulation
Humans
Intention
Judicial Decisions
Legal aspects
Life Support Systems
Medical ethics
Medical sector
Personal Autonomy
Persons
Physician and patient
Quality of Life
Right to Die
Right to Die - legislation & jurisprudence
Suicide
Suicide, Assisted - legislation & jurisprudence
Supreme court
Supreme Court Decisions
Terminally ill
Treatment Refusal - legislation & jurisprudence
United States
United States Supreme Court
Value of Life
Vulnerable Populations
Withholding Treatment
title Death and the Court
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T10%3A56%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Death%20and%20the%20Court&rft.jtitle=The%20Hastings%20Center%20report&rft.au=Capron,%20Alexander%20Morgan&rft.date=1997-09&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=25&rft.epage=29&rft.pages=25-29&rft.issn=0093-0334&rft.eissn=1552-146X&rft.coden=HSCRAS&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/3527800&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA20132042%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g5301-3b007f559602f9f16b2fd7af5440f4724cddf603f7bf49b480964fdbcbfee99f3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=222382934&rft_id=info:pmid/9383664&rft_galeid=A20132042&rfr_iscdi=true