This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Life and Death Decision-Making: Judges v. Legislators as Sources of Law in Bioethics

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Charles Baron (Boston College Law School)
Abstract

In some situations, courts may be better sources of new law than legislatures. Some support for this proposition is provided by the performance of American courts in the development of law regarding the "right to die." When confronted with the problems presented by mid-Twentieth Century technological advances in prolonging human life, American legislators were slow to act. It was the state common law courts, beginning with Quinlan in 1976, that took primary responsibility for gradually crafting new legal principles that excepted withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment from the application of general laws dealing with homicide and suicide. These courts, like the Nineteenth Century predecessor courts that had developed law to respond to technological developments such as the railroad, telegraph, and telephone, felt required to decide each case brought before them. Unlike legislatures, they could do so without binding themselves to sweeping rules that would govern all cases in the future. Their decisions drew upon precedent and created precedent, but their opinions left room to accommodate future cases whose facts might suggest that the principles employed should be extended, retracted, or otherwise modified. Unlike legislatures, they were not subject to direct political control nor could they justify their decisions simply as an expression of majority will. Rather, they carried the burden of writing opinions that justified the retroactive application of the legal principles announced in each case. Their opinions were subjected to critical reading by lawyers, scholars, students, the press, the general public, and by judges required to write later opinions in later cases. The result is an example of the common law dialectic process celebrated by Lord Coke when he claimed that the law of England was "by many succession of ages . . . fined and refined by an infinite number of grave and learned men." Some of the principles employed in early cases such as Quinlan have been abandoned. Others have been built upon. The process continues.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=bc/bclsfp
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Boston College Law School in its series Boston College Law School Faculty Papers with number bc_bclsfp-1014.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation:
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:bep:bclsfp:bc_bclsfp-1014

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: right to die; bioethics; ;

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? There is a FAQ (frequently asked questions).

This page was last updated on 2009-11-19.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.