Gonzales v. Oregon and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Ethical and Policy Issues
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge - Paul M. Hebert Law Center
Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 42, p. 699, 2007
The euthanasia literature typically discusses the difference between “active” and “passive” means of ending a patient’s life. Physician-assisted suicide differs from both active and passive forms of euthanasia insofar as the physician does not administer the means of suicide to the patient. Instead, she merely prescribes and dispenses them to the patient and lets the patient “do the rest” – if and when the patient chooses. One supposed advantage of this process is that it maximizes the patient’s autonomy with respect to both her decision to die and the dying process itself. Still, despite this supposed advantage, Oregon is the only state to have legalized physician-assisted suicide. After summarizing the most important Supreme Court opinions on euthanasia (namely, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep’t of Health; Vacco v. Quill; Washington v. Glucksberg; and Gonzales v. Oregon), this paper argues that while there are no strong ethical reasons against legalizing physician-assisted suicide, there are some very strong policy reasons for keeping it criminal in the other forty-nine states.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 31
Keywords: euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, legitimate medical purpose act/omissions distinction, killing/letting die distinction, due process, withdrawal of life support, Hippocratic Oath, alleviate suffering, Cruzan, Washington v. Glucksberg, Vacco v. QuillAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 27, 2009 ; Last revised: January 9, 2015
© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.313 seconds