Personal tools

Argument: There is no compelling state interest in preventing euthanasia

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated in its 1996 Opinion from Quill v. Vacco[Editors Note: This opinion was later overturned by the Supreme Court in Vacco v. Quill]: - "...What interest can the state possibly have in requiring the prolongation of a life that is all but ended?... And what business is it of the state to require the continuation of agony when the result is imminent and inevitable? What concern prompts the state to interfere with a mentally competent patient's 'right to define [his] own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,' [Planned Parenthood v. Casey] when the patient seeks to have drugs prescribed to end life during the final stages of a terminal illness? The greatly reduced interest of the state in preserving life compels the answer to these questions: 'None'..."[1]

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits