The right to die Flashcards
(33 cards)
What is the current US law regarding right to die?
No state goes beyond allowing accelerated death to those who are terminally ill and have a reasoned estimate of going to die within six months
Explain the case of the Norweigien twin brothers
-Identical twin brother born deaf and becoming blind. Unable to bear not being able to hear or see each other, the requested to die (not a terminal illness)
-Their request was granted and completed
-Euthanasia legal in Belgium but this case revived the question of if it should be.
Explain the Canadian (?) case where a depressed woman was granted assited death.
-50 yr old women loses 2 sons 6 months apart - one to cancer and one to suicide. -Both were in early 20s. After 5 years of suffering, her only wish is to die and to lie in-between the graves of the two sons
-Four psychiatrists, a psychologist, and a GP determined that she is sane, healthy, and ready to die
-No evidence of psychological disorders or symptoms of depression that would have responded to medication
Rodriguez v. British Columbia context (1993)
-Rodriguez dying of ALS and wanted right to choose to assisted suicide
-Rodriguez argued that her right to life, liberty, and secuirty of person was violated
Rodriguez v. British Columbia outcome
-Canadian Supreme Court ruled against her and temporarily upheld that PA assisted suicide was illegal
*later overturned by Carter v. Canada
Carter v. Canada (2015) context
Kay Carter diagnosed with degenerative spinal cord condition
Carter v. Canada outcome
ruled that the right to PA assisted suicide is protected by the “right to life, liberty, and security of the person” and is thus a fundamental right
Court left to the legislature how to implement a broad decision of when it is or isn’t permitted
Overturned Rodriguez v. British Columbia
What parameters were set by Carter v. Canada
- Any component adult who clearly consents to the terminations of life AND
- has a grievous and irremediable medical conditions that causes them enduring suffering that is intolerable
* 3. The legislature limited this to a death that is reasonable foreseeable
Revision of the MAiD Act (2021)
-created a two track system for determining eligibility;
one track for people whose death is reasonably foreseeable (e.g. terminally ill), and one track for people whose death is not. The second track is schedule to include people suffering from mental illness in 2027
MAiD parameters for those who are not facing imminent death
must wait 90 days unless they are at immediate risk of losing capacity to consent
For those who would appose the right to die, for what reasons might they be against it?
-Family may push the patient to die for inheritance money
-People may be suffering because they don’t have social support (E.g. what if a person has diabetes but don’t have social and financial support, so they seek doctor assisted suicide)
-Opponents argued it was morally wrong and that the beneficiaries could abuse the proposal, and it would incentivize hospital to free up beds by encouraging someone to die earlier than they otherwise would
-Argument that it puts greater pressure on disabled patients and are incentivized to end their lives because they don’t have the means for assistance.
-it doesn’t encourage the government to change the system.
Act of commission
doing something to accelerate death
Act of omission
refusing food, water, or treatment (e.g. pulling the plug)
Cruzan v. Missouri (1990) context
Nancy Cruzan suffered brain damage in a car accident. Missouri, which paid $112,000 a year to keep Nancy alive, fought the family all the way to the Supreme Court
What did the US permit in the 70s and 80s?
Substituted judgements: Family could make a decision in the best interest of a patient in a coma
What was the Cruzan family’s argument?
the liberty of the due process clause protects against unwanted medical treatment
What was Missouri’s argument?
the right to privacy does not include the right to die and even if it does, the State’s strong interest in preserving life requires that evidence of the person’s wished be proved by “clear and convincing” evidence
Living will
a legal document that outlines a person’s wishes regarding their medical treatment, especially life-sustaining procedures, if they become incapacitated or unable to make decisions for themselves
In 1976 CA became the first state to adopt living will legislation. Since then, most all other states have joined in
What is the main question of Cruzan v. Missouri?
Did the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit Cruzan’s parents to refuse life-sustaining treatment on their daughter’s behalf?
Cruzan v. Missouri Outcome
recognized the right to refuse medical treatment but required clear and ocnvincing evidence
Family has to present evidence that makes the judge ⅔ sure that this is what she would have wanted
For Cruzan case, they brought in three coworkers who said she would not have wanted to live like a vegetable (decided that they could pull the plug)
Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) context
WA state has made it a crime to assist suicide, punishable by up to five years imprisonment and up to $10,000 fine. At the same time, the state permitted “withholding or withdrawal of life sustaining treatment” at a patient’s directions
Glucksberg treats terminally ill cancer patients. Asked the Supreme Court to recognize the constitutionality of doctor assisted suicide.
States that many cancer patients have to decide between enduring pain or taking medication that alleviates pain but dramatically impairs mental state
Glucksberg argument
Liberty extends to a personal choice by a mentally competent, terminally ill adult to commit physician assisted suicide
earliest case in US that sought to leglize PA assisted suicide
How did the Supreme Court frame the issue for Glucksberg v. Washington
whether the ‘liberty’ protected by the due process clause includes a right to commit suicide which itself includes a right to assistance in doing so
Glucksberg v. Washington outcome
Upheld Washington’s right to criminalize doctor assisted suicide because there is no history and tradition of the right to suicide in the Constitution
Since there is no right to suicide in the constitution and is neutral, the decision returns to the states
