Washington v. Glucksberg is a legal/medical case regarding end-of-life issues. A few questions that arose were about autonomy, dignity, legalities, privacy, personal rights versus constitutional rights, morality, and theology. It is about what is moral but not necessarily what is morality in a legal or constitutional sense. Smith (2008), purports in Michigan Law Review, that there is no clear instruction about the relation of law and morality in Washington v. Glucksberg or Vacco v. Quill (Glucksberg-Quill) this coming from the Supreme Court (p. 1574). If the Supreme Court cannot distinguish between what is legal and moral for society, then who would be up to the task? Is it up to healthcare providers, the family, or the patient? Who has the obligation to assert moral courage in end-of-life issues? Do patients not have the right to die without interference from the state and federal governments, physicians, and families? The right to die with dignity is an ethical issue for the individual and institutions. The following examines the difference between legal and moral issues regarding the debate in
Literature Review
Gengo (2011), notes the United States Congress in 1990, passed the Patient Self Determination Act (PSDA). This act provides (1) patients the right to accept or refuse treatment; (2) the opportunity to write advance directives which allows patients to state in advance the kinds of medical care that he or she considers acceptable or not acceptable; (3) does not discriminate; and (4) educates the staff and community about advance directives. This act defines a legal definition of patient rights. It also explains informed consent with risks and benefits, assent, documentation needed, surrogate decisio...
... middle of paper ...
... and Company. Retrieved from, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11224/11224-h/11224-h.htm#CHAPTER_II
Natural Death Act. Wash. Rev. Code § 70.122.070(1). Washington State Legislature (1979). Retrieved from, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.122&full=true
Pereira, J. (2011). Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards and controls. Current Oncology, 18(2), 38-45. Retrieved from, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract
Promoting a suicide attempt. Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.060(1). Washington State Legislature (1994). Retrieved from, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.36.060
Smith, S. D. (2008). De-moralized: Glucksberg in the malaise. Michigan Law Review, 106, 1571- 1592. Retrieved from, http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy2.library.drexel.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/?
Assisted suicide and euthanasia is a controversial issue all over the world, and it leads to debate as to whether or not an individual should be allowed to decide the moment and form of one’s death, along with the
'Choosing death before dishonor is seen by some philosophers and ethicists as a rational reason to commit suicide.' In the 1994 case of Glucksberg v. Washington (Otherwise acknowledged as Compassion In Dying v. The State Of Washington), Harold Glucksberg, alongside the right-to-die organization Compassion In Dying, filed a suit in opposition to the state of Washington for three fatally ill patients he treated.
Campbell, Courtney. "'Aid-in-Dying' and the taking of Human Life." Journal of Medical Ethics. 18.3 (1992 ): 128-134. Web. 2 March 2015.
There are many legal and ethical issues when discussing the topic of physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The legal issues are those regarding numerous court cases over the past few decades, the debate over how the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution comes into play, and the legalization vs. illegalization of this practice. The 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). PAS in the past has been upheld as illegal due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the constitution, but in recent years this same 14th amendment is also part of the reasoning for legalizing PAS, “nor shall any State deprive any person of…liberty” (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1). The ethical issues surrounding this topic include a patient’s autonomy and dignity and if PAS should be legalized everywhere. This paper is an analysis of the PAS debate and explores these different issues using a specific case that went to the supreme courts called Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al.
Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions: Death with Dignity Act. Oregon Health Authority. Retrieved October 7, 2011, from http://public.health.oregon.gov/PROVIDERPARTNERRESOURCES/
Imagine, if you will, that you have just found out you have a terminal medical condition. Doesn’t matter which one, it’s terminal. Over the 6 months you have to live you experience unmeasurable amounts of pain, and when your free of your pain the medication you’re under renders you in an impaired sense of consciousness. Towards the 4th month, you begin to believe all this suffering is pointless, you are to die anyways, why not with a little dignity. You begin to consider Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS). In this essay I will explain the ethical decisions and dilemmas one may face when deciding to accept the idea of Physician-Assisted Suicide. I will also provide factual information pertaining to the subject of PAS and testimony from some that advocate for legalization of PAS. PAS is not to be taken lightly. It is the decision to end one’s life with the aid of a medical physician. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary states that PAS is “Suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or by information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent.” PAS is considered, by our textbook – Doing Ethics by Lewis Vaughn, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. There are other forms of euthanasia such as non-voluntary, involuntary, and passive. This essay is focusing on PAS, an active voluntary form of euthanasia. PAS is commonly known as “Dying/Death with Dignity.” The most recent publicized case of PAS is the case of Brittany Maynard. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where she lived. At the time California didn’t have Legislative right to allow Brittany the right to commit PAS so she was transported to Oregon where PAS is legal....
In today’s modern society the use of euthanasia and assisted suicide is a hot button topic. Due to the argumentative nature of this issue many philosophers have created their own ideas on how euthanasia and assisted suicide benefit or harm society. These philosophers such as Brock and Callahan differ in their arguments about euthanasia and assisted suicide. Like almost all the heavily opinionated topics in society there should be limits to the use thus my consensus regarding euthanasia and assisted suicide is that it should be legalized to a certain extent.
Horkan, Thomas. "Legislation That Complicates Dying." Eds. Gary McCuen and Therese Boucher. Hudson: Gary McCuen Publications, 1985. 69-72.
...and medical power of attorney choices. Under the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990, healthcare providers ask their patients about advance directives and provide information about available directives, enabling a conversation to take place between them.
Pereira, J. (2011). Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: The illusion of safeguards and controls. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3070710/
Smith, Cheryl. "Should Active Euthanasia Be Legalized: Yes." American Bar Association Journal April 1993. Rpt. in CQ Researcher 5.1 (1995): 409.
[2] R. M. Walker, "Physician- assisted suicide: the legal slippery slope," Cancer Control : Journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center, vol. 8, pp. 25, 2001.
Urofsky, Melvin I. Lethal Judgments: Assisted Suicide and American Law. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2000. Print.
Larson, Edward J. “Legalizing Euthanasia Would Encourage Suicide” Euthanasia- Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wesseker. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1995. 78-83. Print.