Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Not a member yet
3445 research outputs found
Sort by
Legal History of Medical Aid in Dying: Physician Assisted Death in U.S. Courts and Legislatures
Get PDFTerminally ill patients in the United States have four medical options for controlling the time and manner of their death. Three of these are legally available to certain clinically qualified patients. First, all patients may withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Second, all patients may voluntarily stop eating and drinking. Third, patients with intractable suffering may receive palliative sedation to unconsciousness. In contrast, the fourth option is available in only seven U.S. jurisdictions. Only there may patients legally obtain a prescription for a lethal medication that they can later self-ingest.
Medical aid in dying (MAID) is not yet legally available in 49 of 56 U.S. jurisdictions. But its legal status has been in a state of rapid change across the country over the past ten years. Before 2008, MAID was legal only in Oregon. Today, it is legal in seven U.S. jurisdictions. Moreover, the rate and pace of legalization has been accelerating. Three of the now seven MAID jurisdictions enacted their statutes within only the past two years. Moreover, there are widespread and ongoing legislative and judicial efforts to legalize MAID in more than thirty other states.
I have designed this Article to help inform and guide these expanding law reform efforts. Because a page of history is worth a volume of logic, it summarizes earlier efforts (both successful and unsuccessful) to legalize MAID in the United States. In other words, this Article provides a descriptive legal history. It does not normatively assess either whether any efforts to legalize MAID were good public policy. Nor does it assess whether advocates grounded their arguments on solid legal analysis. Instead, this Article offers an objective, systematic, and thorough account of what those efforts were
Action and Reaction: The Trump Executive Orders and Their Reception by the Federal Courts
Get PDFIn the legal sphere, some of the most dominant elements of President Donald Trump’s first year in office were his executive orders. This article focuses on the following (the “Trump Executive Orders”): the three travel ban orders, the sanctuary jurisdictions order, the two successive transgender military exclusion memoranda,and the Attorney General statement indicating rescission of the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. These orders attracted much national media attention and were clearly intended to produce political effects. As a presidential candidate, Trump campaigned for a ban on Muslim immigration and a wall at the United States-Mexico border, and made other statements that solidified support among his populist base.
The Trump Executive Orders, as efforts to fulfill some of these promises made during the campaign, have significant political roots. As documents designed to have legal force and effect, they also have legal significance. Taken together, they demonstrate a strong desire to exclude certain populations and entities from the benefits of being part of American society. The Trump Executive Orders reflect the exclusionary bent of his populism. As a political proposition, calling to exclude the outsider benefitted Trump’s candidacy. But, as a principle of presidential legal action, it has been problematic. Federal courts have been hostile to most of the Trump Executive Orders, and with respect to DACA, a federal court’s initial invalidation of the related Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program left the door open to continued operation of DACA.
The courts’ decisions indicate somewhat ironic results. The exclusionary effect of the Trump Executive Orders is, in a sense, an effort to “turn the clock back” in the affected subject-matter areas. That is, they intended to halt the momentum built during President Obama’s years in office and to begin movement in the opposite direction. Through enjoining these orders, federal courts are making analytical strides that move constitutional doctrine in a direction that conforms more with the momentum that the Trump administration is battling. While the Trump administration has been trying to halt momentum toward liberalization in the political realm, some courts have been developing new doctrines moving liberalization forward in the judicial realm. This article attempts to describe, and point to the irony of, courts using doctrinal expansion and novel interpretation in ways that run counter to President Trump’s exclusionary agenda
Shared Goals: How the HHS Office of Inspector General Supports Health Care Industry Compliance Efforts
Get PDFChanging Hearts, Minds, and Structures: Advancing Equity and Health Equity in State Government Policies, Operations, and Practices in Minnesota and Other States
Get PDF
