Are absolute bans on assisted suicide constitutional? I say no

THE ARGUMENT IN THIS ARTICLE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH ASKS THE COURT TO ENGAGE IN CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCING AND TO HOLD THAT THE TERMINALLY ILL PERSON'S INTEREST IN MAKING THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH IS CONSTITUTIONALLY MORE IMPORTANT T...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:	University of Detroit Mercy law review 1995, Vol.72 (4), p.725-733
1. Verfasser:	Sedler, Robert A
Format:	Artikel
Sprache:	eng
Schlagworte:	Abortion, Induced Bioethics Civil Rights CONFLICT Ethics EUTHANASIA Freedom Government Regulation HEALTH (ALSO SICKNESS AND DISEASE) Humans Jurisprudence LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEMS Personal Autonomy Pharmaceutical Preparations Physician's Role Social Control, Formal State Government SUICIDE AND RELATED SELF-DESTRUCTIVENESS Suicide, Assisted Supreme Court Decisions Terminally Ill Treatment Refusal United States Wedge Argument
Online-Zugang:	Volltext
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

container_end_page	733
container_issue	4
container_start_page	725
container_title	University of Detroit Mercy law review
container_volume	72
creator	Sedler, Robert A
description	THE ARGUMENT IN THIS ARTICLE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH ASKS THE COURT TO ENGAGE IN CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCING AND TO HOLD THAT THE TERMINALLY ILL PERSON'S INTEREST IN MAKING THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH IS CONSTITUTIONALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY INTEREST THAT THE STATE CAN ASSERT TO COMPELL THE PERSON TO GO ON LIVING. THE RESULT DEPENDS ON WHETHER A MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES WILL CONCLUDE THAT THE RATIONALE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF ABORTION CHOICE THAT WAS RECOGNIZED IN "ROE" AND "CASEY" APPLIES IN EQUAL MEASURE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH. THE AUTHOR SUBMITS THAT IT DOES, AND ASSERTS THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF THE TERMINALLY ILL TO MAKE THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH.
format	Article
fullrecord	<record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77079117</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>60743909</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p153t-8265b5115942184497ad4a1281b74ea9786eb386b913315fc41b8f68775970e93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkLtOwzAUQD2AaCn8AvLEFsk3fi-gquJRqRILzJGdOJJRYpdce-jfI0SZmc5ydIZzQdbApGkEb_mKXCN-MsaM0OqKrACUFFyZNXnYLoE6j3mqJVDvEtKcqEOMWMJAscY-DoH2OWGJpZaYk5se6Z6iO9GUb8jl6CYMt2duyMfz0_vutTm8vex320NzBMlLY1olvQSQVrRghLDaDcJBa8BrEZzVRgXPjfIWOAc59gK8GZXRWlrNguUbcv_bPS75qwYs3RyxD9PkUsgVO62ZtgD6X1ExLbhlP8W7s1j9HIbuuMTZLafubw3_BtHrXFU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>60743909</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Are absolute bans on assisted suicide constitutional? I say no</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Sedler, Robert A</creator><creatorcontrib>Sedler, Robert A</creatorcontrib><description>THE ARGUMENT IN THIS ARTICLE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH ASKS THE COURT TO ENGAGE IN CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCING AND TO HOLD THAT THE TERMINALLY ILL PERSON'S INTEREST IN MAKING THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH IS CONSTITUTIONALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY INTEREST THAT THE STATE CAN ASSERT TO COMPELL THE PERSON TO GO ON LIVING. THE RESULT DEPENDS ON WHETHER A MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES WILL CONCLUDE THAT THE RATIONALE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF ABORTION CHOICE THAT WAS RECOGNIZED IN "ROE" AND "CASEY" APPLIES IN EQUAL MEASURE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH. THE AUTHOR SUBMITS THAT IT DOES, AND ASSERTS THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF THE TERMINALLY ILL TO MAKE THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1058-4323</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11654368</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Abortion, Induced ; Bioethics ; Civil Rights ; CONFLICT ; Ethics ; EUTHANASIA ; Freedom ; Government Regulation ; HEALTH (ALSO SICKNESS AND DISEASE) ; Humans ; Jurisprudence ; LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEMS ; Personal Autonomy ; Pharmaceutical Preparations ; Physician's Role ; Social Control, Formal ; State Government ; SUICIDE AND RELATED SELF-DESTRUCTIVENESS ; Suicide, Assisted ; Supreme Court Decisions ; Terminally Ill ; Treatment Refusal ; United States ; Wedge Argument</subject><ispartof>University of Detroit Mercy law review, 1995, Vol.72 (4), p.725-733</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11654368$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sedler, Robert A</creatorcontrib><title>Are absolute bans on assisted suicide constitutional? I say no</title><title>University of Detroit Mercy law review</title><addtitle>Univ Detroit Mercy Law Rev</addtitle><description>THE ARGUMENT IN THIS ARTICLE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH ASKS THE COURT TO ENGAGE IN CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCING AND TO HOLD THAT THE TERMINALLY ILL PERSON'S INTEREST IN MAKING THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH IS CONSTITUTIONALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY INTEREST THAT THE STATE CAN ASSERT TO COMPELL THE PERSON TO GO ON LIVING. THE RESULT DEPENDS ON WHETHER A MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES WILL CONCLUDE THAT THE RATIONALE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF ABORTION CHOICE THAT WAS RECOGNIZED IN "ROE" AND "CASEY" APPLIES IN EQUAL MEASURE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH. THE AUTHOR SUBMITS THAT IT DOES, AND ASSERTS THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF THE TERMINALLY ILL TO MAKE THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH.</description><subject>Abortion, Induced</subject><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Civil Rights</subject><subject>CONFLICT</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>EUTHANASIA</subject><subject>Freedom</subject><subject>Government Regulation</subject><subject>HEALTH (ALSO SICKNESS AND DISEASE)</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Jurisprudence</subject><subject>LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEMS</subject><subject>Personal Autonomy</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical Preparations</subject><subject>Physician's Role</subject><subject>Social Control, Formal</subject><subject>State Government</subject><subject>SUICIDE AND RELATED SELF-DESTRUCTIVENESS</subject><subject>Suicide, Assisted</subject><subject>Supreme Court Decisions</subject><subject>Terminally Ill</subject><subject>Treatment Refusal</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Wedge Argument</subject><issn>1058-4323</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1995</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkLtOwzAUQD2AaCn8AvLEFsk3fi-gquJRqRILzJGdOJJRYpdce-jfI0SZmc5ydIZzQdbApGkEb_mKXCN-MsaM0OqKrACUFFyZNXnYLoE6j3mqJVDvEtKcqEOMWMJAscY-DoH2OWGJpZaYk5se6Z6iO9GUb8jl6CYMt2duyMfz0_vutTm8vex320NzBMlLY1olvQSQVrRghLDaDcJBa8BrEZzVRgXPjfIWOAc59gK8GZXRWlrNguUbcv_bPS75qwYs3RyxD9PkUsgVO62ZtgD6X1ExLbhlP8W7s1j9HIbuuMTZLafubw3_BtHrXFU</recordid><startdate>1995</startdate><enddate>1995</enddate><creator>Sedler, Robert A</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>1995</creationdate><title>Are absolute bans on assisted suicide constitutional? I say no</title><author>Sedler, Robert A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p153t-8265b5115942184497ad4a1281b74ea9786eb386b913315fc41b8f68775970e93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1995</creationdate><topic>Abortion, Induced</topic><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Civil Rights</topic><topic>CONFLICT</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>EUTHANASIA</topic><topic>Freedom</topic><topic>Government Regulation</topic><topic>HEALTH (ALSO SICKNESS AND DISEASE)</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Jurisprudence</topic><topic>LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEMS</topic><topic>Personal Autonomy</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical Preparations</topic><topic>Physician's Role</topic><topic>Social Control, Formal</topic><topic>State Government</topic><topic>SUICIDE AND RELATED SELF-DESTRUCTIVENESS</topic><topic>Suicide, Assisted</topic><topic>Supreme Court Decisions</topic><topic>Terminally Ill</topic><topic>Treatment Refusal</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Wedge Argument</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sedler, Robert A</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>University of Detroit Mercy law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sedler, Robert A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Are absolute bans on assisted suicide constitutional? I say no</atitle><jtitle>University of Detroit Mercy law review</jtitle><addtitle>Univ Detroit Mercy Law Rev</addtitle><date>1995</date><risdate>1995</risdate><volume>72</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>725</spage><epage>733</epage><pages>725-733</pages><issn>1058-4323</issn><abstract>THE ARGUMENT IN THIS ARTICLE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH ASKS THE COURT TO ENGAGE IN CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCING AND TO HOLD THAT THE TERMINALLY ILL PERSON'S INTEREST IN MAKING THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH IS CONSTITUTIONALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY INTEREST THAT THE STATE CAN ASSERT TO COMPELL THE PERSON TO GO ON LIVING. THE RESULT DEPENDS ON WHETHER A MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES WILL CONCLUDE THAT THE RATIONALE FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF ABORTION CHOICE THAT WAS RECOGNIZED IN "ROE" AND "CASEY" APPLIES IN EQUAL MEASURE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH. THE AUTHOR SUBMITS THAT IT DOES, AND ASSERTS THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF THE TERMINALLY ILL TO MAKE THE CHOICE TO HASTEN INEVITABLE DEATH.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>11654368</pmid><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext	fulltext
identifier	ISSN: 1058-4323
ispartof	University of Detroit Mercy law review, 1995, Vol.72 (4), p.725-733
issn	1058-4323
language	eng
recordid	cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_77079117
source	MEDLINE; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; HeinOnline Law Journal Library
subjects	Abortion, Induced Bioethics Civil Rights CONFLICT Ethics EUTHANASIA Freedom Government Regulation HEALTH (ALSO SICKNESS AND DISEASE) Humans Jurisprudence LAW AND LEGAL SYSTEMS Personal Autonomy Pharmaceutical Preparations Physician's Role Social Control, Formal State Government SUICIDE AND RELATED SELF-DESTRUCTIVENESS Suicide, Assisted Supreme Court Decisions Terminally Ill Treatment Refusal United States Wedge Argument
title	Are absolute bans on assisted suicide constitutional? I say no
url	https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T08%3A04%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Are%20absolute%20bans%20on%20assisted%20suicide%20constitutional?%20I%20say%20no&rft.jtitle=University%20of%20Detroit%20Mercy%20law%20review&rft.au=Sedler,%20Robert%20A&rft.date=1995&rft.volume=72&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=725&rft.epage=733&rft.pages=725-733&rft.issn=1058-4323&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E60743909%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=60743909&rft_id=info:pmid/11654368&rfr_iscdi=true