SEARCH · Search PubMed
Results for “Lee v. State of Oregon”
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Lee v. State of Oregon.
HELD: Oregon's Death with Dignity Act, Measure 16, which legalizes physician-assisted suicide for certain terminally ill persons, violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. Measure 16 fails to withstand even the lowest level of judicial scrutiny because the disparate treatment afforded the class of terminally ill persons does not further any legitimate state interest.
Recognizing a fundamental liberty interest protecting the right to die: an analysis of statutes which criminalize or legalize physician-assisted suicide.
Physician-assisted suicide is one of the most controversial issues in society today. We live in an age where medical technology has developed so fast and so far that those who would have swiftly succumbed to deadly diseases in the not too distant past are now living, or, rather, being kept alive long past the point of meaningful existence. Although everyone sympathizes with the painful plight of the terminally ill, the specter of physician-assisted suicide gives many pause, and rightfully so: one need only think of the carbon monoxide contraption in the back of Dr. Death's infamous van to realize that society must address the issue of the right to die. Is there any solution to this great debate? In this note, Mr. William Tarnow passionately answers in the affirmative. Mr. Tarnow analyzes the constitutionality of state statutes which either criminalize or legalize physician-assisted suicide under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution of the United States. The note also considers the case law, largely from the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, invalidating and upholding such statutes under the Constitution. Arguing that there is indeed a constitutional liberty interest in physician-assisted suicide, Mr. Tarnow concludes by suggesting that state legislatures can and must create legislation that legalizes physician-assisted suicide and passes constitutional muster.
Beyond Washington v. Glucksberg: Oregon's Death with Dignity Act analyzed from medical and constitutional perspectives.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Constitutional aspects of physician-assisted suicide after Lee v. Oregon.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
In the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Constitutionalizing death.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The right to assisted suicide in Washington and Oregon: the courts won't allow a northwest passage.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
A model state act to authorize and regulate physician-assisted suicide.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Physician-assisted suicide: should Texas be different?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Whose life is it anyway?: an analysis and commentary on the emerging law of physician-assisted suicide.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Assisted suicide clears a hurdle in highest court.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Oregon's assisted-suicide law lives on.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Legalizing assisted suicide--views of physicians in Oregon.
BACKGROUND: Since the Oregon Death with Dignity Act was passed in November 1994, physicians in Oregon have faced the prospect of legalized physician-assisted suicide. We studied the attitudes and current practices of Oregon physicians in relation to assisted suicide. METHODS: From March to June 1995, we conducted a cross-sectional mailed survey of all physicians who might be eligible to prescribe a lethal dose of medication if the Oregon law is upheld. Physicians were asked to complete and return a confidential 56-item questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 3944 eligible physicians who received the questionnaire, 2761 (70 percent) responded. Sixty percent of the respondents thought physician-assisted suicide should be legal in some cases, and nearly half (46 percent) might be willing to prescribe a lethal dose of medication if it were legal to do so; 31 percent of the respondents would be unwilling to do so on moral grounds. Twenty-one percent of the respondents have previously received requests for assisted suicide, and 7 percent have complied. Half the respondents were not sure what to prescribe for this purpose, and 83 percent cited financial pressure as a possible reason for such requests. The respondents also expressed concern about complications of suicide attempts and doubts about their ability to predict survival at six months accurately. CONCLUSIONS: Oregon physicians have a more favorable attitude toward legalized physician-assisted suicide, are more willing to participate, and are currently participating in greater numbers than other surveyed groups of physicians in the United States. A sizable minority of physicians in Oregon objects to legalization and participation on moral grounds. Regardless of their attitudes, physicians had a number of reservations about the practical applications of the act.
Oregon emergency physicians' experiences with, attitudes toward, and concerns about physician-assisted suicide.
OBJECTIVE: To determine emergency physicians' (EPs') attitudes toward physician-assisted suicide (PAS), factors associated with those attitudes, current experiences with attempted suicides in terminally ill persons, and concerns about the impact of legalizing PAS on emergency medicine practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymous mailed survey was taken of EPs in the state of Oregon. RESULTS: Of 356 eligible physicians, 248 (70%) returned the survey. Of the respondents, 69% indicated that PAS should be legal, 65% considered PAS consistent with the physician's role, and 19% believed that it is immoral. The respondents were concerned that patients might feel pressure if they perceived themselves to be either a care burden on others (82%) or a financial stress to others (69%). Only 37% indicated that the Oregon initiative has enough safeguards to protect vulnerable persons. Support for legalization was not associated with gender, age, or practice location. Respondents with no religious affiliation were most supportive of PAS (p < 0.001), and Catholic respondents were least suppportive (p = 0.03). A majority (58%) had treated at least 1 terminally ill patient after an apparent overdose. Most respondents (97%) indicated at least 1 circumstance for which they would sometimes be willing to let a terminally ill patient die without resuscitation after PAS if the Oregon initiative becomes law: if verified with an advance directive from the patient (81%), with documentation in writing from the physician (73%), after speaking to the primary physician (64%), if a competent patient verbally confirmed intent (60%), or if the family verbally confirmed intent (52%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of Oregon EPs favor the concept of legalization of PAS, most have concerns that safeguards in the Oregon initiative are inadequate to protect vulnerable patients. These physicians would consider not resuscitating terminally ill patients who have attempted suicide under the law's provisions, only in the setting of documentation of the patient's intent.