English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Dying is personal. And it is profound. For many, the thought of an ignoble end, steeped in decay, is abhorrent. A quiet, proud death, bodily integrity intact, is a matter of extreme consequence. —Justice William Brennan Two recent circuit court decisions have reinvigorated the debate over the constitutional, practical and ethical ramifications of physician-assisted suicide. In Compassion in Dying v. Washington, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a liberty interest exists in choosing the time and manner of one’s death. The court found this right to outweigh all asserted state interests, and concluded that, with respect to competent, terminally ill adults, Washington’s prohibition of assisted suicide violates the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling effectively strikes down laws against assisted suicide in all of the states in the Ninth Circuit. In April 1996, in Quill v. Vacco, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that New York’s prohibition of assisted suicide violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.

Constitutional Aspects of Physician-Assisted Suicide After Lee v. Oregon