The alleged distinction between euthanasia and the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment: Conceptually incoherent and impossible to maintain

Authors
Citation
D. Orentlicher, The alleged distinction between euthanasia and the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment: Conceptually incoherent and impossible to maintain, U ILL LAW R, (3), 1998, pp. 837-859
Citations number
56
Categorie Soggetti
Law
Journal title
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW
ISSN journal
02769948 → ACNP
Issue
3
Year of publication
1998
Pages
837 - 859
Database
ISI
SICI code
0276-9948(1998):3<837:TADBEA>2.0.ZU;2-0
Abstract
Richard Epstein, in his book Mortal Peril, supports euthanasia and assisted suicide and rejects the distinction between them and withdrawal of treatme nt. In this essay, Professor Orentlicher argues that Epstein is correct in finding no meaningful moral distinction between euthanasia and treatment wi thdrawal, examines the reasons why the distinction has persisted in America n jurisprudence, and explains why the distinction has eroded. Epstein also concludes in his book that there is no constitutional right to euthanasia or assisted suicide. Professor Orentlicher's response is that c onstitutionality is not the appropriate inquiry; rather, the better questio n is whether to recognize a right to assisted suicide once a right to eutha nasia in the form of terminal sedation already exists. He answers this ques tion in the affirmative, arguing that assisted suicide enhances patient wel fare and reduces risks of abuse in a world with euthanasia.