Law in Contemporary Society

View   r8  >  r7  ...
EthanSingerFirstEssay 8 - 25 May 2021 - Main.EbenMoglen
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstEssay"
Line: 35 to 35
 While Glucksberg points out that some people may have an interest in dying one day and not the next, it is often the terminally ill, and the sickest of the terminally ill, that are the least enabled in choosing how they will die. And as Justice Stevens points out in his concurrence, many of the states that have laws banning physician assisted-death have “authorized the death penalty, and thereby concluded that the sanctity of human life does not require that it always be preserved.” In a society where states acknowledge that life should not always be preserved, and in a society where the end of life can legally be hastened, exceptions to preserving life are clearly made. It is time to revisit how the exceptions are made. Those whose days before an impending death are all but certain to be unpleasant should have their options for hastening their death expanded to include more humane options, right to die or not.
Added:
>
>
As you recognize, the question is not whether people have a right to die, but whether the state can prohibit assistance. You do not actually provide any argument one way or another on that point. It would obviously strengthen the draft to do so.

 


Revision 8r8 - 25 May 2021 - 21:59:16 - EbenMoglen
Revision 7r7 - 19 May 2021 - 03:08:17 - EthanSinger
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM