Have the judiciary stepped beyond the territory that is appropriate for the courts in relation to Life, Death and the Law?
The issues surrounding Life, Death and the Law spark war between those who argue the traditional view and are opposed to end-of-life procedures and those who argue for complete individual autonomy on how and when their life should come to an end. It also takes a deeper look into constitutional law, namely the roles legislation, adjudication and prosecutors play in end-of-life law and policy.
One of the main problems to tackle is whether Parliament need to reform the current law on end-of-life policy, those who are for individual autonomy clearly hold the view that the current law needs reformation but that leads on to another key question, that being, until Parliament decide to reform the law regarding end-of-life policy who is responsible for formulating or partially reforming said laws. To extend this question even further, one might ask does Parliament reserve the right to decide the law on
…show more content…
The legislators are there to define the rules, the judiciary to interpret them and the prosecutors are designed to determine when to invoke them. But, as the current law appears to be failing to accurately express society’s changing values and opinions, it seems more than appropriate that judges should be left to exercise their discretion.
In his article ‘Guarding the gates of St Peter: life, death and law making,’ Jonathon Montgomery makes a firm statement that ‘the judiciary has stepped beyond the territory that is appropriate for the courts into the province of legislation.’ Montgomery argues that the creation of laws is a right reserved for Parliament, however it seems as though the courts have not stepped beyond their territory but rather stepped into place where the law has fallen
Euthanasia is one of the most complicated issues in the medical field due to the debate of whether or not it is morally right. Today, the lives of many patients can be saved with the latest discoveries in medicine and technology. But we are still unable to find cures to all illnesses, and patients have to go through extremely painful treatments only to live a little bit longer. These patients struggle with physical and psychological pain. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. discusses the topic of just and unjust laws in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” which brings into question whether it is just to kill a patient who is suffering or unjust to take that person’s life even if that person is suffering. In my opinion people should have the right, with certain restrictions, to end their lives in the way they see fit if they are suffering from endless pain.
As the years go by our society advances in all fields. As a result, we as a society have come to question many elements in our lives by comparing them to longstanding morals and traditions. The medical fields has always, and probably will always, raise many controversial issues. The latest concerns whether euthanasia or physician assisted suicide should be universally legalized in the U.S. Those opposed see that there are other alternatives other than taking a person’s own life, with the help of a doctor. Not only are they essential to incorporate into the options for people experiencing terminal illnesses, legalization would allow an overall upgrade in combating abuse with this treatment, at the same time, people are thoroughly against the
The quality of life is constantly being redefined. The courts now support an individualistic approach to euthanasia, rather than imposing a society-wide prescription to what they feel constitutes the quality of one’s life. Since the quality of life can only be determined by the individual, directives allow individuals, or should they become incompetent, their families to express their preferences (Roberts, 23).
We believe all people have the freedom to make choices in their life, however, the question posed today is whether we have the freedom to choose our death. Some say absolutely. We should have the freedom to decide how we spend our last days. If they’re filled with pain, debilitating, and cause hardship on our loved ones, we should have the right to opt out. Others take the view that we didn’t choose our birth, therefore our death isn’t ours to choose either. This has caused much debate as moral, ethical and legal ramifications come into the mix. This in turn has led to defining the process under two different terms for legal purposes. They are euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Internationally, assisted suicide is a doctor prescribing
The so-called ‘right to life’ debate has been beaten to death with no resolution in sight…but what of the ‘right to die’ issue? In California, legislation was passed last year that allows terminally ill patients, who are not expected to live more than six months, to request physician-assisted suicide. However, as with the other four states that have adopted similar legislation, the patient must be capable of administering the lethal drug to himself or herself, medical personnel are not required to participate in any way, and the relief does not benefit any others, such as quadriplegics or those suffering from chronic debilitating diseases("State-by-State Guide to Physician-Assisted Suicide"). Therefore, healthcare professionals can choose to follow their own moral values regardless of the patient’s wishes…and they do. The option to choose not to follow a patient’s wishes, or to deny assistance, steps squarely on the personal rights and freedoms of the
In the face of the threat of euthanasia, does the patient have the right to the final word? What are his rights in the area of medical care? This essay will explore this question, and provide case histories to exemplify these rights in action.
“It’s Over, Debbie” an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, written by an anonymous person, sparks a heated debate concerning the nature of euthanasia. The article is written from the perspective of gynecology resident’s. After analyzing the patient’s condition, he gives her a twenty milligram dose of morphine sulfate. This amount of dose is not concerned lethal; however, given the patient’s underweight body and medical condition was enough to kill her. The problem arises in determining whether this was active or passive euthanasia. Due to the ambiguous wording of the article, the answer can vary from reader to reader. For example, the anonymous author describes how the nurse gave the resident hurried details,
The protection of life has been a foundation for many laws and social mores and legalizing euthanasia cheapens that protection. A recent challenge to this idea came in a London lawsuit when two severely disabled men claimed their protected human rights were violated because they could not choose how and when to die. The British Court ruled that while the current laws did not support the rights the men claimed, “the ban on euthanasia is justified” (Cheng 1). In this lawsuit, the right to live won above the so-called right to die because a law that was enacted by the people of Britain was protected. Had the case won, the laws that British voters approved to protect life, would have been cast away. Similarly in the United States, many bills to promote euthanasia have died once voters were informed of the debate. Initiative 119, which would have legalized euthanasia in Washington in 1991, at first show...
This diver issue raises many questions such as: how should decisions be made, and by whom? What should be determined as a matter of law and what left a matter of discretion and judgment? Should those who want to die, or who are in a "persistent vegetative state" be allowed to die voluntarily? Who should decide: the patient, the physician, the courts, or the families? The pro-euthanasia arguments turn on the individual case of the patient in pain, suffering at the center of an intolerable existence. When life becomes unbearable, quick death can be the answer.
However, despite the support that this right to die movement had gained, there was opposition as states like California, Michigan, and Maine rejected it. The divided opinions of the nation then lead to the controversial question: Should terminally ill patients have the right to choose to die? However, with religion aside, the answer leans towards “yes.” Terminally ill patients should have the righ...
In the case of Cruzan by Cruzan V. Director, Missouri Department of Health “Right to Die” is the issue at hand. Nancy Cruzan twenty-five on January 11, 1983 was thrown from her car in a crash a few miles from her home. When police and paramedics arrived on the scene of the crash her brain had been deoxygenated for somewhere in between the time frame of twelve to fourteen minutes. Sadly
The debate over whose decision it is to uphold a human life is one with a vast range of opinions. Some believe it should be up to God, whereas others assert that it is the right of an individual; however, the ultimate verdict rests in the hands of the government. When tragedy leaves a victim in critical condition with no assurance of recovery, circumstances do not allow for a straightforward action plan. In any state of affairs, it is optimal to continue the life of a patient, even if it seems as though the ideal solution is death. Medical practitioners, relatives, and patients themselves do not deserve the pressure to decide this grave fate. The choice between life and death should not exist. Every human is entitled to the right to live, and
Currently, physician-assisted suicide is illegal. Through numerous court cases, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged the fact that people have the constitutional “right to die.” The Court also realized that ass...
Everyone, at some point in their life, will grapple with the grievous reality of a loved one dying. Doctors and medical practitioners will do all they can to comfort and help those who are terminally ill, but their efforts will only postpone the inevitable. Modern medical advances have facilitated the use of life-support machines and intubation, but these advances have also facilitated the controversial introduction of euthanasia and physician-assisted dying. A number of pro-choice advocates have recently suggested that euthanasia is the gentlest, easiest, and quickest way to end one 's life with dignity. By focusing on these appealing prospects, however, many people do not adequately take into account what I consider to be important constituents
Death is something that causes fear in many peoples lives. People will typically try to avoid the conversation of death at all cost. The word itself tends to freak people out. The thought of death is far beyond any living person’s grasp. When people that are living think about the concept of death, their minds go to many different places. Death is a thing that causes pain in peoples lives, but can also be a blessing.