Assisted Suicide, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutive Function of the Law
The reasonings behind popular culture responses to the controversy over a terminally ill patient's right to die are examined. It is contended that physician-assisted suicide functions as a mise-en-scene for evaluation of the social transformation of health care; specifically, the economic, cult...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Hastings Center report 1997-09, Vol.27 (5), p.29-34, Article 29 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 34 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 29 |
| container_title | The Hastings Center report |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Kaveny, M. Cathleen |
| description | The reasonings behind popular culture responses to the controversy over a terminally ill patient's right to die are examined. It is contended that physician-assisted suicide functions as a mise-en-scene for evaluation of the social transformation of health care; specifically, the economic, cultural, & structural elements of medical care have been transformed. Five popular cultural responses are identified: (1) individuals know what is right & why; (2) an individual's end-of-life care presents a complicated dilemma easily defended by both opposing groups; (3) terminally ill patients require psychological care rather than medical attention; (4) the foreign press has an aversion to the topic; & (5) the foundations of Western morality have been transformed by postmodernity. Unlike abortion, which has witnessed the mass mobilization of US society, the debate over physician-assisted suicide will most likely be characterized by the presence of competing alternatives that are merely pieces of more encompassing metacultural responses to the contemporary world. J. W. Parker |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2307/3527801 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79438910</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A20132043</galeid><jstor_id>3527801</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A20132043</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c7142-5a547494e23bc3dc9417bb9548251d5fadeed9786bdfb4764de67a2cf7b13a363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqN011v0zAUBuAIgcYYiF-AVCEEu2gg_rYvq4p2FR1F2vjQbiwnOSnu0qTEDtv-Pe4aFRWVbfFFFOfRcfz6JIpeouQ9Jon4QBgWMkGPokPEGI4R5T8eR4dJokicEEKfRs-cWyThopIcRAeKSMI5O4xOB85Z5yHvnbU2szn0e_4nhIdVA0voDeu28f2eqfLb6WFdOW996-1v6I3aKvO2rnp1cftyaq6eR08KUzp40d2Poq-jj-fDk3g6G0-Gg2mcCURxzAyjgioKmKQZyTNFkUhTxajEDOWsMDlAroTkaV6kVHCaAxcGZ4VIETGEk6Po7abuqql_teC8XlqXQVmaCurWaaEokQol90KOGGZCyXshU4JLhkmAx3dCJDjiimCJA339D12EOKsQjMYYhxMIOwuov0FzU4K2VVH7xmRzqKAxZV1BYcP0ACeI4ISul4_38DByWNpsnz_e8YF4uPZz0zqnP32ZPJROZt8eSuV4ukP7-2hWlyXMQYe2GM52-LsNz5rauQYKvWrs0jQ3GiV63em66_QgX3XptukS8q3rWvtvUttKmfVm3bAhMVvuqdf5q5Dgzf-W1SeDs3Mk8fp032z8wvm6ueMzu7Lrv-x6y0xzqbkggunvn8daqfHF9EKe6hH5A2qzJz8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>222383764</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assisted Suicide, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutive Function of the Law</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><creator>Kaveny, M. Cathleen</creator><creatorcontrib>Kaveny, M. Cathleen</creatorcontrib><description>The reasonings behind popular culture responses to the controversy over a terminally ill patient's right to die are examined. It is contended that physician-assisted suicide functions as a mise-en-scene for evaluation of the social transformation of health care; specifically, the economic, cultural, & structural elements of medical care have been transformed. Five popular cultural responses are identified: (1) individuals know what is right & why; (2) an individual's end-of-life care presents a complicated dilemma easily defended by both opposing groups; (3) terminally ill patients require psychological care rather than medical attention; (4) the foreign press has an aversion to the topic; & (5) the foundations of Western morality have been transformed by postmodernity. Unlike abortion, which has witnessed the mass mobilization of US society, the debate over physician-assisted suicide will most likely be characterized by the presence of competing alternatives that are merely pieces of more encompassing metacultural responses to the contemporary world. J. W. Parker</description><identifier>ISSN: 0093-0334</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-146X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/3527801</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9383665</identifier><identifier>CODEN: HSCRAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Aid-in-Dying: The Supreme Court & the Public Response ; Assisted suicide ; Bioethics ; Care and treatment ; Constitutional law ; Criticism and interpretation ; Death ; Decisions ; Due process of law ; Empirical Research ; Ethical aspects ; Euthanasia ; Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary ; Federal circuit courts ; Government Regulation ; Humans ; Judicial Decisions ; Judicial Role ; Legal aspects ; Medical ethics ; Medical sector ; Moral judgment ; Morality ; Pain ; Pain, Intractable ; Personal Autonomy ; Persons ; Philosophy ; Physician and patient ; Physicians ; Public Opinion ; Right to Die ; Right to Die - legislation & jurisprudence ; Social Justice ; Stress, Psychological ; Suicide ; Suicide, Assisted - legislation & jurisprudence ; Supreme court ; Supreme Court Decisions ; Terminally ill ; United States ; United States Supreme Court ; Value of Life ; Voluntary euthanasia ; Vulnerable Populations ; Wedge Argument</subject><ispartof>The Hastings Center report, 1997-09, Vol.27 (5), p.29-34, Article 29</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1997 The Hastings Center</rights><rights>1997 The Hastings Center</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 1997 Hastings Center</rights><rights>Copyright The Hastings Center Sep/Oct 1997</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c7142-5a547494e23bc3dc9417bb9548251d5fadeed9786bdfb4764de67a2cf7b13a363</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3527801$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3527801$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,1417,27865,27924,27925,33775,45574,45575,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9383665$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kaveny, M. Cathleen</creatorcontrib><title>Assisted Suicide, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutive Function of the Law</title><title>The Hastings Center report</title><addtitle>Hastings Cent Rep</addtitle><description>The reasonings behind popular culture responses to the controversy over a terminally ill patient's right to die are examined. It is contended that physician-assisted suicide functions as a mise-en-scene for evaluation of the social transformation of health care; specifically, the economic, cultural, & structural elements of medical care have been transformed. Five popular cultural responses are identified: (1) individuals know what is right & why; (2) an individual's end-of-life care presents a complicated dilemma easily defended by both opposing groups; (3) terminally ill patients require psychological care rather than medical attention; (4) the foreign press has an aversion to the topic; & (5) the foundations of Western morality have been transformed by postmodernity. Unlike abortion, which has witnessed the mass mobilization of US society, the debate over physician-assisted suicide will most likely be characterized by the presence of competing alternatives that are merely pieces of more encompassing metacultural responses to the contemporary world. J. W. Parker</description><subject>Aid-in-Dying: The Supreme Court & the Public Response</subject><subject>Assisted suicide</subject><subject>Bioethics</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Criticism and interpretation</subject><subject>Death</subject><subject>Decisions</subject><subject>Due process of law</subject><subject>Empirical Research</subject><subject>Ethical aspects</subject><subject>Euthanasia</subject><subject>Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary</subject><subject>Federal circuit courts</subject><subject>Government Regulation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Judicial Decisions</subject><subject>Judicial Role</subject><subject>Legal aspects</subject><subject>Medical ethics</subject><subject>Medical sector</subject><subject>Moral judgment</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Pain, Intractable</subject><subject>Personal Autonomy</subject><subject>Persons</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Physician and patient</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Public Opinion</subject><subject>Right to Die</subject><subject>Right to Die - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Social Justice</subject><subject>Stress, Psychological</subject><subject>Suicide</subject><subject>Suicide, Assisted - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Supreme court</subject><subject>Supreme Court Decisions</subject><subject>Terminally ill</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>United States Supreme Court</subject><subject>Value of Life</subject><subject>Voluntary euthanasia</subject><subject>Vulnerable Populations</subject><subject>Wedge Argument</subject><issn>0093-0334</issn><issn>1552-146X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>KPI</sourceid><sourceid>88H</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2N</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqN011v0zAUBuAIgcYYiF-AVCEEu2gg_rYvq4p2FR1F2vjQbiwnOSnu0qTEDtv-Pe4aFRWVbfFFFOfRcfz6JIpeouQ9Jon4QBgWMkGPokPEGI4R5T8eR4dJokicEEKfRs-cWyThopIcRAeKSMI5O4xOB85Z5yHvnbU2szn0e_4nhIdVA0voDeu28f2eqfLb6WFdOW996-1v6I3aKvO2rnp1cftyaq6eR08KUzp40d2Poq-jj-fDk3g6G0-Gg2mcCURxzAyjgioKmKQZyTNFkUhTxajEDOWsMDlAroTkaV6kVHCaAxcGZ4VIETGEk6Po7abuqql_teC8XlqXQVmaCurWaaEokQol90KOGGZCyXshU4JLhkmAx3dCJDjiimCJA339D12EOKsQjMYYhxMIOwuov0FzU4K2VVH7xmRzqKAxZV1BYcP0ACeI4ISul4_38DByWNpsnz_e8YF4uPZz0zqnP32ZPJROZt8eSuV4ukP7-2hWlyXMQYe2GM52-LsNz5rauQYKvWrs0jQ3GiV63em66_QgX3XptukS8q3rWvtvUttKmfVm3bAhMVvuqdf5q5Dgzf-W1SeDs3Mk8fp032z8wvm6ueMzu7Lrv-x6y0xzqbkggunvn8daqfHF9EKe6hH5A2qzJz8</recordid><startdate>199709</startdate><enddate>199709</enddate><creator>Kaveny, M. Cathleen</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>The Hastings Center</general><general>Hastings Center</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8GL</scope><scope>KPI</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88H</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2N</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199709</creationdate><title>Assisted Suicide, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutive Function of the Law</title><author>Kaveny, M. Cathleen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c7142-5a547494e23bc3dc9417bb9548251d5fadeed9786bdfb4764de67a2cf7b13a363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Aid-in-Dying: The Supreme Court & the Public Response</topic><topic>Assisted suicide</topic><topic>Bioethics</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Criticism and interpretation</topic><topic>Death</topic><topic>Decisions</topic><topic>Due process of law</topic><topic>Empirical Research</topic><topic>Ethical aspects</topic><topic>Euthanasia</topic><topic>Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary</topic><topic>Federal circuit courts</topic><topic>Government Regulation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Judicial Decisions</topic><topic>Judicial Role</topic><topic>Legal aspects</topic><topic>Medical ethics</topic><topic>Medical sector</topic><topic>Moral judgment</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Pain, Intractable</topic><topic>Personal Autonomy</topic><topic>Persons</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Physician and patient</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Public Opinion</topic><topic>Right to Die</topic><topic>Right to Die - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Social Justice</topic><topic>Stress, Psychological</topic><topic>Suicide</topic><topic>Suicide, Assisted - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Supreme court</topic><topic>Supreme Court Decisions</topic><topic>Terminally ill</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>United States Supreme Court</topic><topic>Value of Life</topic><topic>Voluntary euthanasia</topic><topic>Vulnerable Populations</topic><topic>Wedge Argument</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kaveny, M. Cathleen</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: High School</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Global Issues</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Religion Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Access via Art, Design & Architecture Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Religion Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Hastings Center report</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kaveny, M. Cathleen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assisted Suicide, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutive Function of the Law</atitle><jtitle>The Hastings Center report</jtitle><addtitle>Hastings Cent Rep</addtitle><date>1997-09</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>29</spage><epage>34</epage><pages>29-34</pages><artnum>29</artnum><issn>0093-0334</issn><eissn>1552-146X</eissn><coden>HSCRAS</coden><abstract>The reasonings behind popular culture responses to the controversy over a terminally ill patient's right to die are examined. It is contended that physician-assisted suicide functions as a mise-en-scene for evaluation of the social transformation of health care; specifically, the economic, cultural, & structural elements of medical care have been transformed. Five popular cultural responses are identified: (1) individuals know what is right & why; (2) an individual's end-of-life care presents a complicated dilemma easily defended by both opposing groups; (3) terminally ill patients require psychological care rather than medical attention; (4) the foreign press has an aversion to the topic; & (5) the foundations of Western morality have been transformed by postmodernity. Unlike abortion, which has witnessed the mass mobilization of US society, the debate over physician-assisted suicide will most likely be characterized by the presence of competing alternatives that are merely pieces of more encompassing metacultural responses to the contemporary world. J. W. Parker</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>9383665</pmid><doi>10.2307/3527801</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0093-0334 |
| ispartof | The Hastings Center report, 1997-09, Vol.27 (5), p.29-34, Article 29 |
| issn | 0093-0334 1552-146X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79438910 |
| source | MEDLINE; PAIS Index; Sociological Abstracts; Access via Wiley Online Library; Jstor Complete Legacy |
| subjects | Aid-in-Dying: The Supreme Court & the Public Response Assisted suicide Bioethics Care and treatment Constitutional law Criticism and interpretation Death Decisions Due process of law Empirical Research Ethical aspects Euthanasia Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary Federal circuit courts Government Regulation Humans Judicial Decisions Judicial Role Legal aspects Medical ethics Medical sector Moral judgment Morality Pain Pain, Intractable Personal Autonomy Persons Philosophy Physician and patient Physicians Public Opinion Right to Die Right to Die - legislation & jurisprudence Social Justice Stress, Psychological Suicide Suicide, Assisted - legislation & jurisprudence Supreme court Supreme Court Decisions Terminally ill United States United States Supreme Court Value of Life Voluntary euthanasia Vulnerable Populations Wedge Argument |
| title | Assisted Suicide, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutive Function of the Law |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T12%3A37%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assisted%20Suicide,%20the%20Supreme%20Court,%20and%20the%20Constitutive%20Function%20of%20the%20Law&rft.jtitle=The%20Hastings%20Center%20report&rft.au=Kaveny,%20M.%20Cathleen&rft.date=1997-09&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=29&rft.epage=34&rft.pages=29-34&rft.artnum=29&rft.issn=0093-0334&rft.eissn=1552-146X&rft.coden=HSCRAS&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/3527801&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA20132043%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=222383764&rft_id=info:pmid/9383665&rft_galeid=A20132043&rft_jstor_id=3527801&rfr_iscdi=true |