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

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.