這個主題當然會很有爭議
但希望大家不要被誤導
州法院所作出的判決 在美國習慣法的體系中
會有其根據
另外相關證據必須由當事人完整提出 由陪審團裁定
法官所作出的判決 乃是基於各州憲法 法律所作出的決定
事實部分由陪審團決定
這個議題很爭議
但是所作出的判決背後都會有它的體系與原因在
也許大家有支持的論點與看法
但不要被傳媒的片面報導給誤導了
和音樂無關 只是個人看法


一些關於安樂死爭議的看法
明天要上這個主題
有關美國憲法

The "Right to Die"

以下為節錄筆記:

1. The right to refuse medical treatment, commonly referred to as
the "right to die," has its foundation in common law traditions
that respect patient autonomy and bodily integrity.
病人的身體自主權與身體的健全

2. Justice Cardozo: "Every human being of adult year and sound mind
has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and
a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent
commits an assault...."
憲法賦予的權利與醫生未得同意治療成立侵權行為

3. The patient's right not to consent medical treatment flows logically
from the requirement that physicians obtain informed consent.
同上

4. State courts have taken diverse approaches in finding a right to refuse
treatment, relying primarily on state constitutions, statutes, and common
law.
州法院對於相關解釋所作出的判決 決定基礎在於各州憲法 各州法規 與習慣法

5. The arguments might also support drawing a clear line between a right to
resist bodily invasion in the form of medical treatment and a right to
demand lethal medical attention.

Under certain circumstances a surrogate may act
for the patient in electing to have hydration
and nutrition withdrawn in such a way as to cause
death, but the state has established a procedural
safeguard to assure that the action of the surrogate
conforms as best it may to the wishes expressed by the
patient while competent.

The state requires that evidence of the incompetent's wishes
as to the withdrawal of treatment be proved by clear and
convincing evidence.

6. 關鍵案件
Cruzen v. Directior, Missouri Department of Health 497 U.S. 261 (1990)