Gonzales v. Oregon and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Ethical and Policy Issues

Tulsa Law Review 42:699-729 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX


The euthanasia literature typically discusses the difference between “active” and “passive” means of ending a patient’s life. Physician-assisted suicide differs from both active and passive forms of euthanasia insofar as the physician does not administer the means of suicide to the patient. Instead, she merely prescribes and dispenses them to the patient and lets the patient “do the rest” – if and when the patient chooses. One supposed advantage of this process is that it maximizes the patient’s autonomy with respect to both her decision to die and the dying process itself. Still, despite this supposed advantage, Oregon is the only state to have legalized physician-assisted suicide. After summarizing the most important Supreme Court opinions on euthanasia (namely, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep’t of Health; Vacco v. Quill; Washington v. Glucksberg; and Gonzales v. Oregon), this paper argues that while there are no strong ethical reasons against legalizing physician-assisted suicide, there are some very strong policy reasons for keeping it criminal in the other forty-nine states.



External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

461 (#42,665)

6 months
61 (#78,624)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ken M. Levy
Louisiana State University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references