Person:
Storer, Amy Ann Bubnash

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Storer

First Name

Amy Ann Bubnash

Name

Storer, Amy Ann Bubnash

Filters

20171

Settings

Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.52a12c60-3bcc-44eb-b1b5-6fab0cc7f401

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Publication
    Euthanasia and the Law: The Rise of Euthanasia and Relationship With Palliative Healthcare
    (2017-03-07) Storer, Amy Ann Bubnash; Cohen, Harvard Law Professor Glenn; Ostrowski, Donald
    Acting as the conductor on the train of impending death, a divisive turn to the left will hasten human pain and end life; while a swerve to the right will prolong human life, but also, extend unbearable human pain and suffering. One could make sound arguments that both of these grim decisions are equally acts of compassion or malice. How do these options fluctuate when an express death wish is made, or when artificial means of life prolongation are compulsory? The only remaining option is taking no action and letting God, nature, or the universe be the resolving ruler of human fate. Dominating the American political landscape is the perpetual controversy of the point at which human life beings (i.e., abortion), but the legal and judicial systems have predominately neglected to address the other end of this vital spectrum – at what point does human life end? What defines true autonomy and can one’s autonomous choices ever fully be unfettered from external influence or subconsciously felt societal pressure? Moreover, perhaps it is simply unreasonable and implausible to expect a mortal decision be unequivocally autonomous in the most austere form. In terms of a death wish, self-rule in the de facto sense exists for citizens in nations practicing Active Voluntary Euthanasia (AVE) and Passive Assisted Suicide (PAS). Paradoxically, in doing so, the autonomy to subsequently change one’s mind is simultaneously, eternally surrendered. Proponents question how society can place a value on human life in the face of egregious pain and suffering. After all, without health, what is life? Essentially, when men die with dignity and grace, they have wholly exhausted human health in its earthly form. In an era of medical advancement and a burgeoning global elderly population, the acclaimed “Right to Health” is all the rage in the modern legal landscape. Still, families confronted with end-of-life decisions are haunted by the engulfing hope that what is deemed incurable today could be scientific breakthrough tomorrow. Whatever side of the fence one sits on, the construct of euthanasia legislation is ripe for discrimination. Those opposing euthanasia practices fear discrimination and vulnerability is bound to run rampant against the elderly, sickly and impoverished; meanwhile, proponents are concerned that discrimination against gender, age, and medical condition will obstruct citizens from rightfully governing their own health affairs. Most daunting remains the heightened ambiguity over what explicitly constitutes “unbearable suffering” and which group shall hold authority to dictate these qualifiers – the lawmaker, judicial system, physicians, families, patients, or a hybrid-combination, thereof? Under the United States Declaration of Independence, we are assured the right of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”; yet, the perspective of what is protected as an inalienable right has expanded in unprecedented ways. Our Founding Fathers could have never predicted where we stand today and adaptations must be made to align modern civil liberties with bioethics.