IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v31yi4p1-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rights and the Political Process: Physician-Assisted Suicide in the Aftermath of Washington v. Glucksberg

Author

Listed:
  • John Dinan

Abstract

Although scholars have been concerned over the last several decades with assessing the relative consequences of relying on the political and judicial processes for resolving rights claims, most of these studies have analyzed cases in which rights have been secured through the judicial process. This paper takes a different approach and analyzes the consequences of Washington v. Glucksberg (1997), in which the U.S. Supreme Court deferred the issue of physician-assisted suicide to the states 'political processes, at least for the present time. This study seeks to determine, through an analysis of state developments in the two-year period following the Glucksberg decision, the extent to which the various hypothesized advantages of resolving rights claims through the political process have been realized. It is reasonable to conclude that Glucksberg has generally had the effect of enhancing democratic deliberation, securing representation of relevant interests, and providing opportunities for policy experimentation in various states. Copyright , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • John Dinan, 0. "Rights and the Political Process: Physician-Assisted Suicide in the Aftermath of Washington v. Glucksberg," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 31(4), pages 1-22.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:31:y::i:4:p:1-22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:31:y::i:4:p:1-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.