Right-to-die debate continues in legislatures and courts

Hosp Ethics. 1993 May-Jun;9(3):9-10.

Abstract

Although right-to-die initiatives have failed in Washington and California in recent years, the issue will resurface in Ohio and New Hampshire later this year. In a Gannett News Service article published in the April 12 Chicago Sun-Times, Ross Goldstein, a San Francisco psychologist and "trend tracker," states that physician-assisted suicide will soon become accepted. He predicts a new form of doctor/manager will surface to help families decide whether to take this step and how to do so. "Baby boomers don't turn over authority to their doctors," he says. "When they reach the end state, they will expect to be part of the decision-making team." For now, the debate centers around individual cases and two different approaches, as exemplified by two different proponents. On the one hand is Jack Kevorkian, who envisions a network of death doctors or "obitiatrists" practicing "medicine." On the other is Timothy Quill, who calls for more humane care for the dying and the legalization of physician-assisted suicide, but with strict guidelines and in the confines of a long-term doctor-patient relationship. The following articles look at reactions in Michigan toward Kevorkian and at a case in British Columbia that may reach the Supreme Court of Canada.

MeSH terms

  • Canada
  • Right to Die / legislation & jurisprudence*
  • Suicide, Assisted / legislation & jurisprudence*
  • United States