The death with dignity movement: Protecting rights and expanding options after Glucksberg and Quill

Minnesota Law Review

Volumn 82, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 923-

  Tucker, Kathryn L ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSISTED SUICIDE; DEATH AND EUTHANASIA; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LAW; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; PAIN; PALLIATIVE THERAPY; RIGHT TO DIE; TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT; UNITED STATES; VACCO V. QUILL; WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG;

DEATH AND EUTHANASIA; LEGAL APPROACH; VACCO V. QUILL; WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG;

HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGISLATION; PAIN; PALLIATIVE CARE; RIGHT TO DIE; STATE GOVERNMENT; SUICIDE, ASSISTED; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; TERMINALLY ILL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0032048652     PISSN: 00265535     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (3)

1. An excellent overview of the developments in modern medicine that have caused this to occur is found in the first three chapters of MARILYN WEBB, THE GOOD DEATH: THE NEW AMERICAN SEARCH TO RESHAPE THE END OF LIFE (1997).
2. See, e.g., Kate Stewart, Physician Aid in Dying, POLLING REP., July 28, 1997, at 1, 6-7 (providing polling data broken down by gender, race, age, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, and political affiliation, and concluding: "That the American public strongly supports allowing a doctor to assist a terminally ill, suffering patient end his or her life. . . . [S]upport is in the 69% to 75% range.").
3. See Jerald G. Bachman et al., Attitudes of Michigan Physicians and