Throughout the twentieth century, major scientific and medical
advances have greatly enhanced the life expectancy of the average person.
However, there are many instances where doctors can preserve life
artificially. In these cases where the patient suffers from a terminal
disease or remains in a "persistent vegetative state" or PVS from which
they cannot voice their wishes for continuation or termination of life, the
question becomes whether or not the patient has the freedom to choose
whether or not to prolong their life even though it may consist of pain and
suffering. In answer to this question, proponents of physician-assisted
suicide, most notably, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, are of the opinion that not only
should patients be able to abstain from treatment, but if they have a
terminal and/or extremely painful condition, they should be able to seek
out the assistance of a doctor in order to expedite their death with as
little pain as possible. Contained herein are the arguments for and against
the le galization of doctor-assisted suicide, as well as where the state
courts stand in respect to this most delicate of issues. In the hopes of
clarification, we must first distinguish between active and passive
euthanasia. Passive euthanasia involves the patient's refusal of medical
assistance. It involves the right to die which is protected by the United
States Constitution clauses of due process liberty and the right to privacy
(Fourteenth Amendment). The right to doctor-assisted suicide, or active
euthanasia, consists of, "...a patient's right to authorize a physician to
perform an act that intentionally results in the patient's death, without
the physician's being held civilly or criminally liable for having caused
the death" . The "passive" form of euthanasia was first deemed legal by the
New Jersey State Supreme Court in 1976 In re Quinlan . In the Quinlan...