Come Lovely and Soothing Death: The Right to Die Movement in the United States

2001 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 631
Author(s):  
Kevin Fox Gotham ◽  
Elaine Fox ◽  
Jeffrey J. Kamakahi ◽  
Stella M. Capek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
The Right

Collaborated Death: An Exploration of the Swiss Model of Assisted Suicide for Its Potential to Enhance Oversight and Demedicalize the Dying Process

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen J. Ziegler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Assisted Suicide ◽  
Social Problems ◽  
The United States ◽  
Modern Medicine ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Location Of Death ◽  
The Right

Medicalized Death and the Right to Die Movement Prior to the 20th Century, most Americans died at home, surrounded by family, friends, and neighbors. Religion, not medicine, governed the death bed for there was little physicians could do for the dying. Eventually, however, advances in medicine and technology would lead to dramatic changes in the timing and location of death: patients not only began living longer, they were also dying longer, and unlike their predecessors, were more likely to die alone, in institutions, and among strangers. Modern medicine, in its zeal to conquer death, had become obsessed with its curative function and ability to extend the lives of the dying. To many in the medical community, death represented failure and was something to be avoided at all costs, and like many other social problems in the United States, had become medicalized.

Reflections on the Intriguing Issue of the Right to Die in Dignity

1995 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Patient ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Passive Euthanasia ◽  
Form Of Life ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Active And Passive Euthanasia

This study compares how four countries, the United States, Canada, Britain and Israel, conceive active and passive euthanasia and the right to die in dignity. I start the discussion by clarifying the scope of the analysis and by shedding light on the concepts of autonomy and dignity. Section II proceeds by drawing attention to the familiar distinction between active and passive euthanasia, reviewing the current legal positions in the United States, Canada and England. Section III addresses Ronald Dworkin's distinction between experiential and critical interests, and further contemplates the analogy he draws between the destruction of life and the destruction of masterpieces of art. The section continues by contrasting Dworkin's assertion that what we seek is life in earnest, not any form of life, with Leibowitz's view that human life is sacred. In this context I also refer to the recent Scheffer decision, the only ruling at this time by the Israeli Supreme Court on the issue of death with dignity. Section IV considers the Eyal case, involving an amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patient who expressed his wish not to be connected to a respirator. I assert that in such instances, the patients' autonomy would be sustained and their dignity better served by helping them die. It is not always true that keeping a person alive is to treat her best. In some situations we respect a person and her dignity when we help her cease living. My justification for helping such patients fulfill their request rests on the assumption that they freely and genuinely expressed their will to die, and that they persist in expressing that desire.

The Right to Die: A Cross-National Analysis of Agenda Setting and Innovation

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
J D Smith ◽  
H R Glick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Policy Entrepreneurs ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Right ◽  
National Analysis ◽  
Cross National

Through theories of agenda setting and innovation, the origin, development, and enactment of right-to-die policy in four Western nations—the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, and Great Britain—are examined. Different social and government structures produced varied right-to-die politics in each of these countries, although similar issues received more emphasis in Europe. However, it is discovered that policy entrepreneurs, organizations, and governments are important in similar ways in moving the issue from the public to the governmental agenda and to policy innovations in each country. The paper is concluded with a discussion of elements to be included in a model of agenda setting and innovation and with a proposal for the application of theory to a wider range of policies.

Natural Law and the “Right to Die”

1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond A. Whiting
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Right To Die ◽  
Social Concerns ◽  
Political Traditions ◽  
The Right

Over the last two decades social concerns with the “right to die” have grown beyond the ability of our governmental and judicial institutions to consistently deal with them. One reason for this difficulty has been the unavailability of any legal or judicial standard that is consistent with American conceptions of liberty, morality, and justice. This article attempts to examine the theory of natural law to determine whether it may provide a consistent standard for resolving these difficult questions. As natural law theories are traced through history, they lead directly to the United States where a uniquely American interpretation became one of the foundational principles for our constitution. By applying these theories to the contemporary question of the “right to die,” natural law can again provide the foundational principles needed to develop standards for dealing with such questions that are consistent with our historical, philosophical, and political traditions.

Lending to the Borrower from Hell

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauricio Drelichman ◽  
Hans-Joachim Voth
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Sovereign Debt ◽  
Risk Sharing ◽  
The United States ◽  
Philip Ii ◽  
Loan Contracts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Intelligent Model ◽  
New Evidence

Why do lenders time and again loan money to sovereign borrowers who promptly go bankrupt? When can this type of lending work? As the United States and many European nations struggle with mountains of debt, historical precedents can offer valuable insights. This book looks at one famous case—the debts and defaults of Philip II of Spain. Ruling over one of the largest and most powerful empires in history, King Philip defaulted four times. Yet he never lost access to capital markets and could borrow again within a year or two of each default. Exploring the shrewd reasoning of the lenders who continued to offer money, the book analyzes the lessons from this historical example. Using detailed new evidence collected from sixteenth-century archives, the book examines the incentives and returns of lenders. It provides powerful evidence that in the right situations, lenders not only survive despite defaults—they thrive. It also demonstrates that debt markets cope well, despite massive fluctuations in expenditure and revenue, when lending functions like insurance. The book unearths unique sixteenth-century loan contracts that offered highly effective risk sharing between the king and his lenders, with payment obligations reduced in bad times. A fascinating story of finance and empire, this book offers an intelligent model for keeping economies safe in times of sovereign debt crises and defaults.

Law Struggles, Lawmaking, and the Politics of Hegemony in Neoliberal India

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Bo Nielsen ◽  
Alf Gunvald Nilsen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Land Acquisition ◽  
Ethical Perspective ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Fair Compensation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Neoliberal India ◽  
Land Question

The chapter examines the fairness claim of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR), 2013. The author uses the utilitarian fairness standard proposed by one of the most influential American constitutional scholars of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Frank Michelman, whose study of judicial decisions from an ethical perspective by introducing the concept of “demoralization costs” has shaped the interpretational debate on takings law in the United States. Michelman’s analysis is particularly relevant for the land question in India today since there is a widespread feeling that millions of people have been unfairly deprived of their land and livelihoods. The chapter looks at the role of the Indian judiciary in interpreting the land acquisition legislation since landmark judgments affect the morale of society. It concludes that using Michelman’s standard would help in bringing about greater “fairness” than what the new legislation has achieved.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document