Morality Politics of Physician-Assisted Suicide: Comparing Canada and the United States

IF 0.3 Q3 AREA STUDIES
R. Tatalovich
{"title":"Morality Politics of Physician-Assisted Suicide: Comparing Canada and the United States","authors":"R. Tatalovich","doi":"10.3138/IJCS.57.X.71","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In contrast to the European tendency toward parliamentary enactment of euthanasia reforms, policies on physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in both Canada and the United States were promulgated by high court rulings. These rulings were very different, however: the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a constitutional right to assisted-suicide while the Supreme Court of the United States denied that any constitutional right exists. This comparative analysis of public opinion, media coverage, federalism, interest groups, and jurisprudence argues that the key variable explaining these divergent policy outcomes was the one-sided debate over PAS in the United States, while a two-sided debate occurred in Canada.","PeriodicalId":29739,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Canadian Studies","volume":" ","pages":"-"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3138/IJCS.57.X.71","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Canadian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/IJCS.57.X.71","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In contrast to the European tendency toward parliamentary enactment of euthanasia reforms, policies on physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in both Canada and the United States were promulgated by high court rulings. These rulings were very different, however: the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a constitutional right to assisted-suicide while the Supreme Court of the United States denied that any constitutional right exists. This comparative analysis of public opinion, media coverage, federalism, interest groups, and jurisprudence argues that the key variable explaining these divergent policy outcomes was the one-sided debate over PAS in the United States, while a two-sided debate occurred in Canada.
医生协助自杀的道德政治:比较加拿大和美国
与欧洲议会制定安乐死改革的趋势相反,加拿大和美国的医生协助自杀(PAS)政策都是由高等法院裁决颁布的。然而,这两项裁决却截然不同:加拿大最高法院支持宪法赋予协助自杀的权利,而美国最高法院则否认存在任何宪法赋予的权利。这项对公众舆论、媒体报道、联邦制、利益集团和法理的比较分析认为,解释这些不同政策结果的关键变量是美国对PAS的片面辩论,而加拿大则是双边辩论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信