Setting limits on death: A view from the united states

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 24-32

  Johnson, Sandra H ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE EUTHANASIA; AGED; ARTICLE; ASSISTED SUICIDE; CHILD; DEATH AND EUTHANASIA; ETHICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MENTAL CAPACITY; MENTAL STRESS; MOTIVATION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; SOCIAL JUSTICE; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; TERMINAL CARE; TREATMENT WITHDRAWAL; UNITED STATES; VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA; VULNERABLE POPULATION;

DEATH AND EUTHANASIA;

AGED; CHILD; EUTHANASIA, ACTIVE; EUTHANASIA, ACTIVE, VOLUNTARY; FEMALE; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HUMANS; LIABILITY, LEGAL; MENTAL COMPETENCY; MOTIVATION; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PREJUDICE; SOCIAL JUSTICE; STRESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SUICIDE, ASSISTED; TERMINAL CARE; UNITED STATES; VULNERABLE POPULATIONS; WEDGE ARGUMENT; WITHHOLDING TREATMENT;

EID: 0030469464     PISSN: 09631801     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0963180100006691     Document Type: Article

References (4)

1. Quill TE. Death and dignity: a case of individualized decision making. New England Journal of Medicine 1991;324:691.
2. Aid in Dying Act, Initiative Measure 199. Washington, 1991.
3. Death With Dignity Act, Initiative Measure 161. California, 1992.
4. Natural Death Act, Death With Dignity Act, 1995 Oregon Laws Chap. 3 (I. M. 16); Lee v. Oregon, 1995 WL 471,792 (D. Or. 1995).