AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION;
ARTICLE;
CANCER;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW;
DEATH AND EUTHANASIA;
EUTHANASIA;
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT;
GOVERNMENT;
GOVERNMENT REGULATION;
HUMAN;
HUMAN RIGHTS;
JURISPRUDENCE;
LEGAL APPROACH;
LEGAL ASPECT;
LEGAL RIGHTS;
LIVING WILL;
POLITICS;
PRESCRIPTION;
STATE INTEREST;
UNITED STATES;
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION;
AUTONOMY;
CANCER;
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW;
DEATH AND EUTHANASIA;
DUE PROCESS;
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT;
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT;
GOVERNMENT REGULATION;
LEGAL APPROACH;
LEGAL RIGHTS;
MICHIGAN;
STATE INTEREST;
SUFFERING;
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS;
UNITED STATES;
HUMAN;
MICHIGAN;
PERSONAL AUTONOMY;
POLITICS;
PRESCRIPTIONS, DRUG;
RIGHT TO DIE;
SUICIDE, ASSISTED;
UNITED STATES;
The study commission was directed to make recommendations to the legislature on the entire subject of assisted suicide—including whether the practice should be made a criminal offense.
2
84977724126
The ACLU procedural challenge included the claim that the enactment of the ban violated provisions of the state constitution prohibiting the same bill from containing more than one “object” and prohibiting a “change of purpose” of proposed legislation during its legislative journey through both houses. These provisions, common to many state constitutions, are designed to make legislatures more directly responsible to the electorate by preventing “logrolling” and “hasty, ill‐considered legislation.” The trial court held that enactment of the assisted suicide ban as an amendment to the bill establishing the study commission violated these state constitutional provisions, and enjoined its enforcement. The trial court's order has been stayed pending an expedited appeal, so at the present time, the ban remains in effect.
3
84977724423
If the Michigan appellate courts uphold the trial court's order on this ground of challenge, there will be no occasion for the Michigan courts to resolve the substantive constitutional challenge that is the subject of this article.
4
0027599852
Are Laws against Assisted Suicide Unconstitutional?
See the Supreme Court's classic discussion of this point in Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U.S. 549, at 569. The concept of line of growth of constitutional doctrine is explained in Terrance Sandalow, “Constitutional Interpretation,” Michigan Law Review 79 (1981): 1033‐72.
(1947)
12
0040374671
The Legitimacy Debate in Constitutional Adjudication: An Assessment and a Different Perspective
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (112 Sup.Ct. 2791), the Court recently affirmed that part of the Roe v. Wade decision, but held that the state could regulate the abortion procedure, even for the purpose of discouraging women from having an abortion, so long as the particular regulation did not impose an “undue burden” on the woman's decision whether to have an abortion.
(1992)
18
84977717447
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 112 Sup.Ct 2791, 2805‐7
(1992)
19
84977733454
As the Supreme Court has stated simply, “We assume that the United States Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition.” Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 110 Sup. Ct. 2841, at 2853
(1990)
20
84977720689
There is no question, of course, that the state, in the exercise of its power to impose reasonable regulations on the practice of medicine, could constitutionally regulate physician participation in assisting the voluntary termination of life. Such regulations would be constitutional so long as they did not impose an undue burden on the decision of a competent terminally ill person to hasten the inevitable termination of life. For example, the state might limit physician participation in assisting the voluntary termination of life to practicing clinical physicians and/or to clinical physicians who have been directly involved in the care of the terminally ill patient. Such a regulation would be assumed to be constitutional, since it would not prevent the competent terminally ill patient from obtaining physician assistance in implementing his or her decision to hasten the inevitable end of life.
21
84977712619
“Are Laws against Assisted Suicide Unconstitutional?” p.
In Roe v. Wade, for example, the Court held that the state's interest in protecting potential human life was not of sufficient constitutional importance to outweigh the interest of the pregnant woman in bodily integrity and control of her own body until the pregnancy had reached the stage of viability.
* 이 정보는 Elsevier사의 SCOPUS DB에서 KISTI가 분석하여 추출한 것입니다.
