Federal Judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Con to the question "Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?"
"Having addressed the major moral-legal arguments raised in the assisted suicide and euthanasia debate to date, the Article ["The Right to Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia"] then argues in Part VII that a basic moral and common law principle has been largely overlooked. Whatever the claims of fairness or autonomy or utility may be, this principle holds that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong. Part VII also examines the roots of the principle and its application. It argues that the principle explains and makes sense of the current legal distinctions between cases where treatment may be withdrawn and where it may not, where potentially lethal care may be given and where it may not, as well as why assisted suicide and euthanasia should not be permitted. It suggests that, whether the venue is judicial or legislative, the appropriate line society should draw--and today largely does draw--is between acts intended to kill and acts where no such intention exits."
"The Right to Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 2000
Experts MDs, JDs (Lawyers), PhDs and Religious Leaders with significant involvement in end-of-life issues. [Because end-of-life dilemmas require medical, ethical, legal, and in some case religious considerations, we view MDs, PhDs with a bio-ethical focus, and JDs/religious leaders with significant involvement as "experts" in the euthanasia debate.] [Note: Experts definition varies by site.]
Involvement and Affiliations:
Thomson Visiting Professor, Colorado Law, University of Colorado at Boulder, Fall 2012-present
Federal Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Aug. 8, 2006-present
Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General and Acting Associate Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, 2005-2006