Euthanasia writing assignment help

Euthanasia writing assignment help ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Euthanasia writing assignment help *Instructions for this assignment are attached below labeled “instructions for essay”. Please read it carefully. Euthanasia writing assignment help I need a well written argumentative paper on the topic of Euthanasia . Below i have attached articles and journals needed for this essay. Please be free to use other articles you might find useful. Attached also is an example of an essay on this topic, which my essay could have some of the same ideas to. The format for this essay is APA. The essay should also have about 12-13 paragraphs. Keep in mind, I’m arguing for the legalization of euthanasia, i want it to be legalized. I have also completed my thesis below. Thesis: The moral and ethical concerns over euthanasia do not take into account the emotional strain of a long illness on those who watch a loved one suffer and die. Here is the example essay : http://www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/Eut… Some Articles will be listed below, while 3 others will be attached as a document ( will be labeled “Euthanasia Article DL” ). Euthanasia writing assignment help Articles: 1) https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/19/2/128/4… 2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC29493… 3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11215… 4) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC31858… 5) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC30707… instructions_for_essay.jpg euthanasia_dl_3.pdf euthanasia_dl_2.pdf euthanasia_article_dl.pdf 0091-4169/15/10501-0149 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Copyright © 2016 by Northwestern University School of Law Vol. 105, No. 1 Printed in U.S.A. CRIMINALS GET ALL THE RIGHTS: THE SOCIOLEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF DIFFERENT RIGHTS TO DIE MEREDITH MARTIN ROUNTREE* In the United States, different people have different rights to die. This Article traces the origins of death-sentenced prisoners’ ability to enlist assistance in dying and compares it to the considerably more circumscribed right held by people with serious illness. It uses empirical research on “volunteers,” death-sentenced prisoners who sought execution, to argue that the legal standard for adjudicating their requests to hasten execution should be changed. Empirical evidence suggests many of the concerns governing the regulation of assisted dying in the medical context are present in the death row case. This Article therefore urges courts to use a balancing test comparable to that developed in cases involving assisted dying in the medical context. Further, counsel should be appointed to articulate the state’s interests in subjecting the conviction and sentence to appellate review. * Visiting Assistant Professor, Northwestern Law. J.D., 1991, Georgetown University Law Center; Ph.D., 2012, University of Texas at Austin. I thank the American Bar Foundation, the Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, Texas State University at San Marcos, the Proteus Action League, and the University of Texas for financial support for this project. In addition to the contributions of the Journal’s editors and staff, I am also grateful for the suggestions offered by Shari Seidman Diamond, David John Frank, Elizabeth Mertz, Janice Nadler, Robert C. Owen, Melynda J. Price, Jothie Rajah, Susan P. Shapiro, Robert J. Smith, and Jordan M. Steiker. I owe a particular debt to John A. Robertson and Phyllis L. Crocker for their especially searching review and insightful questions and comments. All shortcomings are, of course, my own. 149 150 MEREDITH MARTIN ROUNTREE [Vol. 105 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………… 151 I. DIFFERENT RIGHTS TO DIE ………………………………………………………….. 154 A. Death-Sentenced Prisoners……………………………………………….. 154 1. Process for Hastening Execution …………………………………. 154 2. Legal Criteria for Hastening Execution ………………………… 157 B. Hastening Death in the Medical Context…………………………….. 160 C. Analogizing the Volunteer to the Severely Ill Who Seek to Die………………………………………………………………………………. 162 II. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS REGARDING DEATH ROW PRISONERS, INCLUDING “VOLUNTEERS” ………………………………………………….. 163 A. Death Row Volunteers Generally Do Not Have a “Terminal” Condition Comparable to That Which Limits Applicability of “Death with Dignity” Statutes …………………………………….. 164 B. Death Row Volunteers’ Increased Risk for Suicide ……………… 165 C. Death Row Prisoners Can Have Meaningful Relationships with Third Parties …………………………………………………………. 170 D. Volunteers’ Legal Proceedings May Not Be Vigorously Litigated ………………………………………………………………………. 172 E. Litigation Without Counsel Threatens the Integrity of the Legal Process ……………………………………………………………….. 173 III. SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON RIGHTS TO DIE ……………………………………… 174 A. Among the Very Ill …………………………………………………………. 175 1. Twentieth-Century Euthanasia Movements …………………… 176 2. Euthanasia writing assignment help The Role of Organized Medicine in Contemporary Movements ……………………………………………………………… 177 3. Fear of the Slippery Slope …………………………………………… 177 4. Contemporary Legal Safeguards ………………………………….. 179 B. Among the Death-Sentenced …………………………………………….. 180 1. Historical Context ……………………………………………………… 180 2. Logic of Death Penalty Law ……………………………………….. 184 3. Cultural Frames of Mental Illness and Criminality…………. 185 IV. PROPOSED ANALYSIS FOR ADJUDICATING REQUESTS TO EXPEDITE EXECUTION…………………………………………………………………………. 187 A. State’s Interest in Preventing Suicide and Preserving Life ……. 188 B. Institutional Security Concerns …………………………………………. 192 C. State’s Interest in Protecting Innocent Third Parties …………….. 193 D. State’s Interest in the Integrity of the Legal System and Legal Profession …………………………………………………………… 194 2016] CRIMINALS GET ALL THE RIGHTS 151 1. The Legitimacy of the Death Penalty System ………………… 194 2. The Integrity of the Legal Profession……………………………. 196 3. Counsel Must Be Appointed to Represent the Range of State Interests ………………………………………………………….. 198 E. Standard of Proof ………………………………………………………….. 199 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………… 200 INTRODUCTION With the ink scarcely dry on the Supreme Court’s decision reviving capital punishment in the United States,1 Gary Gilmore burst onto the legal scene. Gilmore demanded his execution, all but daring the State of Utah to kill him. In response to opponents of his execution, Gary Gilmore complained: You know, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that you have a right to die. I’m talking about the Karen Ann Quinlan case. I don’t even really think that enters, if I want to press for my civil rights. I could raise issues like that, but I’m not.2 Since Gary Gilmore’s 1976 execution, over 10% of death-sentenced prisoners executed in the United States hastened their own executions.3 This Article examines Gilmore’s (and others’) contention that these prisoners have a “right” to die, as well as the sociolegal context in which rights to hasten death are embedded. Comparing the rights to die of the terminally ill and the death-sentenced reveals how historical contingencies, normative 1 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). The New Jersey Supreme Court, not the United States Supreme Court, decided the Quinlan case in March 1976. In re Quinlan, 355 A.2d 647 (N.J. 1976). Gilmore’s reference to this case in November 1976, however, reflects its cultural currency at the time he sought to be executed. Transcript of November 30, 1976 Utah Board of Pardons Hearing at 12, In re Gilmore, 429 U.S. 1012 (1976) (on file with author). 3 The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) reports 1,389 executions in the modern era and identifies 142 “volunteers,” defined as those prisoners who waive available legal appeals. Searchable Execution Database, DEATH PENALTY INFO. CTR., http://www. deathpenaltyinfo.org/views-executions (last visited Sept. 19, 2014), archived at http:// perma.cc/CC4P-5TG8; http://perma.cc/5BG6-ACG7. It excludes, therefore, prisoners who pursue legal remedies, but do not seek clemency. It also excludes those prisoners who abandoned their appeals at one point, but then changed their minds, regardless of whether the courts permitted them to resume their appeals. Margaret Vandiver et al., “Let’s Do It!”: An Analysis of Consensual Executions, in THE DEATH PENALTY TODAY 190 (Robert M. Bohm ed., 2008). Euthanasia writing assignment help The Winter 2014 edition of Death Row U.S.A., compiled by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. reported that of the 1,359 individuals executed in the modern era, 143 were volunteers, or 10.5%. NAACP LEGAL DEF. AND EDUC. FUND, INC., DEATH ROW U.S.A. WINTER 2014, at 10 (2014), available at http://www.naacpldf.org/files/ publications/DRUSA_Winter_2014.pdf, archived at http://perma.cc/UEN5-JZBB. For a discussion of the word “volunteer,” see infra subpart III(B)(3). 2 152 MEREDITH MARTIN ROUNTREE [Vol. 105 beliefs, and different legal logics can shape legal responses to demands for rights. In this case, the death row prisoner is legally privileged as compared to the terminally ill patient. Paradoxically, however, the more expansive right held by the death row prisoner reflects and furthers his social marginalization. Prior scholarship on so-called volunteers has generally taken one of two approaches.4 One strand focuses on reforming the legal standards governing volunteers. Anthony Casey, as discussed below, argued for different standards for waiving appeals depending on the appeal sought to be waived.5 John Blume proposed a framework for adjudication that would assess possible suicidal motivation and prohibit “unjust” punishments, such as the execution of the innocent or those who are categorically excluded from the death penalty.6 This scholarship retains the essential conceptual model of the criminal law of waiver and the Eighth Amendment death penalty framework of heightened reliability. Another thread of scholarship has argued for a right to execution, analogizing the death row prisoner seeking execution to the terminally ill.7 As explored in greater detail below, this latter work has relied on assumptions about the volunteer population and how capital law works to argue for a categorical right to execution, 4 G. Richard Strafer’s article, Volunteering for Execution: Competency, Voluntariness and the Propriety of Third Party Intervention, 74 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 860 (1983), represents an exception. His qualified Fourteenth Amendment analysis, however, is not informed by more recent legal and empirical developments. 5 Anthony J. Casey, Maintaining the Integrity of Death: An Argument for Restricting a Defendant’s Right to Volunteer for Execution at Certain Stages in Capital Proceedings, 30 AM. J. CRIM. L. 75, 101–05 (2002). 6 John H. Blume, Killing the Willing: “Volunteers,” Suicide and Competency, 103 MICH. L. REV. 939, 967–72 (2005). 7 See, e.g., Kristen M. Dama, Comment, Redefining a Final Act: The Fourteenth Amendment and States’ Obligation to Prevent Death Row Inmates from Volunteering to Be Put to Death, 9 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 1083, 1101 (2007) (arguing states have no constitutional obligation to prevent volunteering for execution); Kathleen L. Johnson, Note, The Death Row Right to Die: Suicide or Intimate Decision?, 54 S. CAL. L. REV. 575, 614–21, 623 (1981) (asserting that the state’s interests in preserving life, protecting innocent third parties, prevention of suicide, and maintaining professional ethics were categorically outweighed by prisoner’s fundamental “right to freedom of choice”; therefore “the state’s interest in preserving respect for life through careful appellate review of all death sentences should give way to the competent prisoner’s right to refuse appeal” so long as the waiver is competently made); Julie Levinsohn Milner, Note, Dignity or Death Row: Are Death Row Rights to Die Diminished? A Comparison of the Right to Die for the Terminally Ill and the Terminally Sentenced, 24 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 279, 336 (1998) (“[T]he death row right to die should exist for those inmates for whom a right to die via refusal of lifesustaining medical treatment would exist if they were terminally ill rather than terminally sentenced” so long as prisoner is competent and waives his rights). 2016] CRIMINALS GET ALL THE RIGHTS 153 rather than one that should be subjected to careful, individualized weighing of interests. This Article supplies a much-needed empirical basis for a critique of the waiver model as inadequate and the unqualified Fourteenth Amendment right to die as inappropriate. Euthanasia writing assignment help The legal standard for waivers is low and problematic, as discussed below. Further, the Fourteenth Amendment right to die framework, which balances the state’s interests in the preservation of life, prevention of suicide, protection of third parties, and protection of the integrity of the medical profession against the individual’s interest in autonomy in dying, is relevant to the death row prisoner. Based on recent research on the death row population generally and volunteers specifically, I propose a standard for death row volunteers that borrows from the medical context by requiring the volunteer to persuade the court that his right to die outweighs the state’s interests. The death row data support the analytic “fit” of the Fourteenth Amendment model. Mental health researchers have found a greater prevalence of psychological and psychiatric disorders on death row generally, and my research suggests that volunteers may be at greater risk for suicide. Many, if not most, death row prisoners (including volunteers) have ties to third parties. My research also highlights the inability of the waiver model to protect the integrity of the legal profession and the legal system broadly conceived. Bypassing appeals raises concerns about the reliability of the capital punishment system. In addition, observations of attorney performance reveal the professional and ethical tensions attorneys confront as they represent volunteering clients. This Article also goes beyond previous work by tracing the sociolegal context in which different rights to die emerged. By contrasting Gary Gilmore and Karen Ann Quinlan, historical contemporaries and landmark figures in defining modern American rights to die, this Article illuminates not only the contradictory ways the law treats the asserted right, but also the profoundly different historical and social settings in which these rights claims emerged. This Article then urges courts to refocus on the fundamental question: when can an individual legally obtain assistance in dying? In answering that question for death-sentenced prisoners, courts should consider the broader social values that they have traditionally weighed in adjudicating requests to hasten death in the medical context. Part I of this Article sets out the different legal frameworks for adjudicating requests to hasten death among the death-sentenced and the sick. Part II describes empirical findings that should inform the central legal questions. Part III discusses the historical and cultural context in which the law took shape. Part IV proposes an improved legal process that incorporates the state’s interests in decisions to hasten death in the medical 154 MEREDITH MARTIN ROUNTREE [Vol. 105 context into adjudications of death row prisoners’ requests to hasten execution. It would also mandate that counsel be appointed to advance the state’s interests in opposing the prisoner’s waiver of further appeals. In its Conclusion, this Article reflects on some of the larger questions raised by this project, including the apparent paradox that the socially powerless death row prisoner has a right to assistance in dying where the innocent and ill do not. In addition, the death row research reveals the precarity and ambiguity of certain legal constructs, such as “voluntary” and “rational,” which are central to defining a right to die. I. DIFFERENT RIGHTS TO DIE8 Death-sentenced prisoners vindicate a right to die through a technical legal process that, when contrasted with the process used by those with serious physical illness, reflects how differently these groups are treated. Courts understand that seriously ill people are embedded in a larger social world and recognize that their cases present profound questions about death and dying. By contrast, for the volunteer, even the most salient concern about the legitimacy of a state execution recedes as the court focuses on the narrower issues of whether the prisoner is competent to waive his rights to appeal and does so knowingly, intelligently, and competently. Euthanasia writing assignment help After outlining the death row volunteer’s legal process, this Part describes the evolution of rights to die in the medical context. As discussed in greater detail below, patients achieved the right to refuse life-sustaining medical intervention in most instances, but a right to assistance in dying was rejected by the Supreme Court. Certain states responded by authorizing assistance in dying under certain very limited circumstances. The Part concludes by analogizing the death row volunteer to patients who seek assistance in dying. A. DEATH-SENTENCED PRISONERS 1. Process for Hastening Execution A death-sentenced prisoner can hasten execution by abandoning his9 appeals, usually by discharging counsel and electing not to file any 8 Versions of the description of the legal regime governing death row waivers have previously appeared in Meredith Martin Rountree, “I’ll Make Them Shoot Me”: Accounts of Death-Sentenced Prisoners Advocating for Execution, 46 LAW & SOC’Y REV. 589 (2012) [hereinafter “Accounts”] and Meredith Martin Rountree, Volunteers for Execution: Directions for Further Research into Grief, Culpability, and Legal Structures, 82 UMKC L. REV. 295 (2014) [hereinafter “Directions for Research”]. 9 While women have been subjected to the death penalty, they constitute only a fraction of death row inmates. As of January 1, 2014, sixty women are on death row in the United 2016] CRIMINALS GET ALL THE RIGHTS 155 pleadings on his own behalf. Prisoners typically have three essentially sequential avenues of appeals. The first appeal is called a “direct appeal,” in which the prisoner generally argues to the state’s highest criminal court that the trial judge made erroneous legal rulings in the course of the trial. The degree to which capital cases are routinely subjected to appellate review may be overstated because of the prevalence of statutory provisions characterizing the direct appeal as “automatic.”10 The availability of the appellate mechanism does not necessarily mean that the direct review cannot be waived. A few states prohibit waiver of direct review in capital cases,11 but others permit deathsentenced prisoners to forgo direct appeal at least in part. These states may permit the death-sentenced prisoner to waive his “personal” right to appeal12 but still require, e.g., a review dictated by statute. Therefore, Washington State requires its Supreme Court to consider whether “there are not sufficient mitigating circumstances to merit leniency”; whether “the sentence . . . is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases”; and whether “the sentence . . . was brought about through passion or prejudice.”13 Texas ostensibly requires a direct appeal, but since States. Thirteen have been executed. By contrast, at last count, 3,010 men are currently on death row, and 1,346 have been executed. NAACP LEGAL DEF. AND EDUC. FUND, INC., supra note 3, at 1, 8. The Death Penalty Information Center reports that 139 death-sentenced men and 3 women successfully sought execution. DEATH PENALTY INFO. CTR., supra note 3. For simplicity, I use the masculine pronoun throughout this Article. 10 See Johnson, supra note 7, at 578; Milner, supra note 7, at 284–85. 11 See, e.g., State v. Ovante, 291 P.3d 974, 978 (Ariz. 2013) (en banc); State v. Brewer, 826 P.2d 783, 790–91 (Ariz. 1992); People v. Massie, 967 P.2d 29, 39–41 (Cal. 1998); Robertson v. State, 143 So. 3d 907, 908–09 (Fla. 2014); Commonwealth v. McKenna, 383 A.2d 174, 180–81 (Pa. 1978). 12 Newman v. State, 84 S.W.3d 443, 444 (Ark. 2002). 13 State v. Dodd, 838 P.2d 86, 97–98 (Wash. 1992); see also Pennell v. State, 604 A.2d 1368, 1375 (Del. 1992) ( … Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10