Wal asked in Politics & GovernmentLaw & Ethics · 1 decade ago

I need one law of NY about euthanasia?

Could anyone tell me which law is that, that allows people to let someone die or help them die if needed?

I´m writting an article about it and cannot find the law anywhere.

3 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    In a few U.S. states, activists in the "death with dignity" movement have sought to expand the scope of living will statutes to permit physicians to provide aid-in-dying.

    Writing in the 5 November 1992 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, three doctors urged the adoption of a new public policy to allow physician-assisted suicide. This, they suggested, would achieve a balance between responding to patients’ needs and protecting the vulnerable. The authors proposed seven clinical criteria that would allow physicians to respond to requests for assisted suicide from competent, incurably ill patients.

    In November 1994, Oregon voters passed Measure 16 which would allow a terminally ill adult resident of Oregon, diagnosed with less than six months to live, to obtain a prescription for medication to end his or her life. Before a physician could issue such a prescription, certain conditions would have to be met. The patient would have to make two oral and one written request for medication and would require a second medical opinion. In addition, at least 15 days would have to have elapsed since the initial request for a prescription.

    A legal challenge to the legislation prevented its proclamation, and in August 1995 a District Court judge found it to be unconstitutional and invalid. However, the Ninth Court Circuit of Appeals found that the plaintiffs in the action had no legal standing to challenge Measure 16. The Court did not decide the constitutional merits of physician-assisted suicide and the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.

    In June 1997, the Oregon legislature voted to send Measure 16 back to the electorate for a second vote in November 1997, at which time the Oregon voters reaffirmed the Act. Reportedly, at least four terminally ill people have since used the provisions of the Act to end their lives.

    In 1994, a Federal District Court in Seattle had declared unconstitutional a Washington State law prohibiting doctor-assisted suicide. In March 1995, a three-member panel of the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit overturned this decision, stating that a right to doctor-assisted suicide had no place in "the traditions of our nation" and was "antithetical to the defence of human life that has been a chief responsibility of our constitutional government." In March 1996, however, the full Ninth Circuit reheard the case and decided, by an 8-3 majority, that the Washington law prohibiting doctor-assisted suicide was indeed unconstitutional and violated the liberty interest under the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The decision was binding on all nine western states.

    In April 1996, a three-member panel of the United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit unanimously struck down a similar law from New York. The court held that the New York law, which made it illegal for doctors to help terminally ill patients end their own lives, violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment in that it protected the rights of patients on life support to order their life support terminated, while denying comparable relief to other terminally ill, mentally competent patients not on life support.

    On 1 October 1996, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear an appeal of the two Court of Appeal rulings. The Court had previously refused to hear an appeal of a Michigan State Court decision upholding a Michigan law prohibiting assisted suicide, passed after Dr. Kevorkian began his campaign of assisting terminally ill people to die.

    On 26 June 1997, the Supreme Court reversed both Court of Appeal decisions, and upheld the Washington and New York statutes prohibiting assisted suicide. However, the court’s finding that these two statutes are constitutional does not mean that a law permitting assisted suicide would be found unconstitutional.

    i hope i'll be a good help for u :)

    bon dimanche ;)

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    i detect it curious what number of people would declare that organic regulations do no longer handbook the technique human moves. that is not, in spite of everything, by skill of twist of destiny that pcs run on electricity as a change of ice cream - scientists and engineers imagine that electricity works a lot more effective constructive to grant the wanted result. interior a similar way, you would convey at the same time docs and biologists to attempt to examine even if it truly is outstanding to kill a particular individual or no longer. and that i even imagine it will be quite plausible to grant an answer that produces the finished plausible result for the species as an finished and likely the persons in contact besides. yet i imagine that even with in case you probably did have this answer produced by skill of professionals, the question does no longer be completely resolved. the reason being straightforward: a human isn't a computer. Human lives are of outstanding value to maximum individuals. This makes mistakes of judgement likely to be some distance more effective intense priced. neither is technology, no count number how a lot explanatory power it develops, likely to be able to describe each and everything. there'll consistently be gaps (likely wide ones) for faith to operate in, even with in case you thoroughly suborn faith to technology (something many at the on the spot are not prepared to do). and when you consider that there'll consistently be room for faith and faith arguably produces some reward in spite of out any variety of supernatural entity, you're likely consistently going to have self assurance round and influencing effects. quite in such intense-stakes judgements because the single above. So sure, a clinical answer about reward does placed a distinct spin on the question, yet no, it seriously isn't the in worry-free words spin. Nor, per chance, ought to it ever be.

  • 1 decade ago

    it is a law about assisting suicide. Dr Kavorkian did this whole thing and he went to jail several times for it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.