Suicide assisted by right-to-die associations: a population based cohort study

Background: In Switzerland, assisted suicide is legal but there is concern that vulnerable or disadvantaged groups are more likely to die in this way than other people. We examined socio-economic factors associated with assisted suicide. Methods: We linked the suicides assisted by right-to-die associations during 2003–08 to a census-based longitudinal study of the Swiss population. We used Cox and logistic regression models to examine associations with gender, age, marital status, education, religion, type of household, urbanization, neighbourhood socio-economic position and other variables. Separate analyses were done for younger (25 to 64 years) and older (65 to 94 years) people. Results: Analyses were based on 5 004 403 Swiss residents and 1301 assisted suicides (439 in the younger and 862 in the older group). In 1093 (84.0%) assisted suicides, an underlying cause was recorded; cancer was the most common cause (508, 46.5%). In both age groups, assisted suicide was more likely in women than in men, those living alone compared with those living with others and in those with no religious affiliation compared with Protestants or Catholics. The rate was also higher in more educated people, in urban compared with rural areas and in neighbourhoods of higher socio-economic position. In older people, assisted suicide was more likely in the divorced compared with the married; in younger people, having children was associated with a lower rate. Conclusions: Assisted suicide in Switzerland was associated with female gender and situations that may indicate greater vulnerability such as living alone or being divorced, but also with higher education and higher socio-economic position.

Do WTO rules improve or impair the right to food?

The global food crisis of 2007–08 seems to be forgotten. Media attention at the time focused on food riots in Haiti and Mozambique, while world leaders and more than a dozen international organizations gathered for several food summits, calling for immediate relief measures. But not a single government seems to remember its obligations under the Right to Food (R2F) which the United Nations (UN) had enshrined back in 1948. Today we have to acknowledge that the R2F still lacks an adequate response under the present multilateral rules and disciplines applying to food production and trade. This chapter examines the present rules and disciplines under the AoA and of those contemplated in the Doha Development Round. Here we find that despite claims to the contrary they contribute precious little to the R2F. Some of the present rules, or the lack thereof, can even act as disincentives for global and national food security. Various forms of production and export subsidies, food aid abuse and export restrictions, are still WTO-legal, with few remedies available to food insecure developing countries. This amounts to a violation of their R2F obligations by many WTO Members.

Trade-offs between voice and silence: a qualitative exploration of oncology staff's decisions to speak up about safety concerns

BACKGROUND Research suggests that "silence", i.e., not voicing safety concerns, is common among health care professionals (HCPs). Speaking up about patient safety is vital to avoid errors reaching the patient and thus to prevent harm and also to improve a culture of teamwork and safety. The aim of our study was to explore factors that affect oncology staff's decision to voice safety concerns or to remain silent and to describe the trade-offs they make. METHODS In a qualitative interview study with 32 doctors and nurses from 7 oncology units we investigated motivations and barriers to speaking up towards co-workers and supervisors. An inductive thematic content analysis framework was applied to the transcripts. Based on the individual experiences of participants, we conceptualize the choice to voice concerns and the trade-offs involved. RESULTS Preventing patients from serious harm constitutes a strong motivation to speaking up but competes with anticipated negative outcomes. Decisions whether and how to voice concerns involved complex considerations and trade-offs. Many respondents reflected on whether the level of risk for a patient "justifies" the costs of speaking up. Various barriers for voicing concerns were reported, e.g., damaging relationships. Contextual factors, such as the presence of patients and co-workers in the alarming situation, affect the likelihood of anticipated negative outcomes. Speaking up to well-known co-workers was described as considerably easier whereas "not knowing the actor well" increases risks and potential costs of speaking up. CONCLUSIONS While doctors and nurses felt strong obligation to prevent errors reaching individual patients, they were not engaged in voicing concerns beyond this immediacy. Our results offer in-depth insight into fears and conditions conducive of silence and voicing and can be used for educational interventions and leader reinforcement.

The Right to Die Debate: The Demonization of Dr. Kevorkian and the Creation of a Moral Panic Surrounding Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States

The Right to Die Debate is a recent but highly controversial moral matter. In particular, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is an issue that has been evaded by the medical community for years. As of 1990, most states had never encountered the issue before and therefore did not have any laws in place to prohibit PAS (Strate et. al, 2005). Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a retired pathologist from Royal Oak Michigan was the first to publicly address PAS. He brought the issue into the limelight through a bizarre and crude series of assisted deaths that had a lasting impact on not only the Right to Die Debate as whole, but on public policy and both federal and state governmental agendas. This study focuses on the way in which the media, in particular the New York Times (NYT) has portrayed Dr. Jack Kevorkian as incompetent, morally culpable and in an overall negative light in the past twenty years. Applying Stanley Cohen’s 1972 theory of moral panic, a content analysis of NYT media publications between 1990 and 1999 supports Cohen’s theory and reveals that the media has created a moral panic surrounding Kevorkian. This has in turn led to public policy that prevents both terminally ill individuals and their doctors from having a desirable choice; that of voluntary euthanasia and PAS.

Perpetual Conflict or Compromise? The Cost of Domestic Legitimacy in the Realm of Women's Human Rights: A Case Study on the Right to an Abortion

With its turbulent and volatile legal evolution, the right to an abortion in the United States still remains a highly contested issue and has developed into one of the most divisive topics within modern legal discourse. By deconstructing the political underpinnings and legal rationale of the right to an abortion through a systematic case law analysis, I will demonstrate that this right has been incrementally destabilized. This instability embedded in abortion jurisprudence has been primarily produced by a combination of textual ambiguity in the case law and judicial ambivalence regarding this complex area of law. In addition, I argue that the use of the largely discredited substantive due process doctrine to ground this contentious right has also contributed to the lack of legal stability. I assert that when these elements culminate in the realm of reproductive privacy the right to terminate a pregnancy becomes increasingly unstable and contested.

An evaluation of the Texas "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet: A state mandated patient education document for induced abortion

Many patient educational documents are written at a grade level higher than the level at which most individuals can read. This discrepancy can lead to treatment noncompliance and negative health outcomes. Therefore, it is important that patients receive readable health information. The Texas "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet is a state mandated informational document provided to women seeking abortion services. Given the significance of the abortion procedure, it is imperative that women considering having an abortion receive accurate and readable health materials. However, no published studies were found that evaluated the readability of the "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the readability of the "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet. To assess the readability, the Flesch-Kincaid readability test was used to evaluate the reading grade level of the entire "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet and each of the 7 sections of the booklet. The results showed that the readability of the entire booklet as well as each section of the booklet was written below the 8th grade reading level. Although the booklet was written below the estimated United States reading level (8th grade), the reading level of this booklet may still be too high for people in Texas who read below the 8th grade level. Based on these results, it is recommended that health care professionals involved in the distribution and explanation of the "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet provide their patients with both written and verbal medical information. The patients should be allowed to ask questions about the abortion procedure so that they can make the most informed choice.^

Texas Health & Safety Code, Section 165.002 - Right to Breastfeed in Texas

The language used in Section 165.002 of the Texas Health and Safety Code renders breastfeeding women vulnerable and susceptible to harassment, discrimination, and persecution via the Texas Penal Code, Sec. 30.05 (Criminal Trespassing), Sec. 21.08 (Indecent Exposure), and Sec. 21.22 (Indecency with a Child). ^ The overall goal of this paper is to develop a solution to this problem via a proposed law or legislative action that offers protection and support for breastfeeding women who choose to nurse in public. Data to inform these recommendations were collected through a literature review and structured interviews with several breastfeeding stakeholders. A literature review of state and federal breastfeeding legislation was conducted to compare and contrast differences between existing legislation in the United States. Interviews were conducted with breastfeeding legislation stakeholders, which included state legislators who have been active in breastfeeding legislation, breastfeeding mothers, and representatives from the Central Texas Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition (Centex HMHB Coalition), Texas Breastfeeding Coalition (TXBF coalition), La Leche League International, and the Texas Business Association. Data from the literature and legislation reviews and interviews were transcribed and examined for common themes using qualitative data techniques. ^ Overall, most of the stakeholders came to a general consensus on three points, (1) breastfeeding women are supported by stakeholders within the community, (2) other legislation or penal codes should not override the right to breastfeed, and (3) the current breastfeeding legislation needs to be improved to adequately support breastfeeding women. The interviews with breastfeeding legislation stakeholders yielded two major recommendations for the improvement of Section 165.002 of the Texas Health and Safety Code: advocacy efforts to change the wording of the legislation and education to inform people about the legislation. ^ The right to breastfeed is an important public health issue in that it provides a host of health benefits for mothers and children, and is more economical and environmentally superior to alternative feeding methods. While breastfeeding in public is not illegal nor ever has been, adequate legislation is important to affirm this right for women so that they can confidently feed their children without embarrassment or harassment.^

A woman's right to know: A policy review of abortion legislation in Texas

Introduction: Despite its legalization, abortion remains a controversial issue, one that has many divided on either side of the political spectrum. While there have been several changes made to abortion policy over the past few decades, one that continues to have many asking questions is the Woman’s Right to Know Act, a piece of state imposed abortion legislation that has implemented strict restrictions and requirements of women seeking abortion, including pre-abortion mandatory counseling and a 24 hour waiting period. This project analyzed four controversial components of the mandatory counseling materials in Texas in an attempt to examine the scientific validity behind this legislation. Methods: In order to understand the scientific validity behind the content of the preabortion mandatory counseling, I conducted a systematic literature review to analyze: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer, the existence of fetal pain, the risk of abortion to future fertility, and the negative psychological effects of abortion. An electronic search in EBSCO and PubMed of review articles published between 1995 and 2010 resulted in fourteen reviews. Results: Results of the systematic review found (1) inconclusive evidence suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer, (2) that fetal pain likely does not occur until the third trimester of pregnancy, (3) that associations exist between induced abortion and subsequent preterm birth and placenta previa, and (4) that there is mixed evidence relating to the negative psychological effects that exist among women having had an abortion and those who have not had abortion. Conclusion: Based on these conclusions, a recommendation was made to revise the current state mandated counseling materials to reflect more accurate and scientifically-based information about abortion and its potential risks.^

The First Century of Right to Arms Litigation

This Article examines state court cases involving the right to arms, during the first century following ratification of the Amendment in 1791. This is not the first article to survey some of those cases. This Article includes additional cases, and details the procedural postures and facts, not only the holdings. The Article closely examines how the Supreme Court integrated the nineteenth century arms cases into Heller and McDonald to shape modern Second Amendment law. Part I briefly explains two English cases which greatly influenced American legal understandings. Semayne’s Case is the foundation of “castle doctrine” — the right to home security which includes the right of armed self-defense in the home. Sir John Knight’s Case fortified the tradition of the right to bear arms, providing that the person must bear arms in a non-terrifying manner. Part II examines American antebellum cases; these are the cases to which Heller looked for guidance on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Part III looks at cases from Reconstruction and the early years of Jim Crow, through 1891. As with the antebellum cases, the large majority of post-war cases are from the Southeast, which during the nineteenth century was the region most ardent for gun control. The heart of gun control country was Tennessee and Arkansas; courts there resisted some infringements of the right to arms, but eventually gave up. Heller and McDonald did not look to the Jim Crow cases as constructive precedents on the Second Amendment.

Brèves observations sur la consécration constitutionnelle d’un droit de retrait volontaire = Brief comments on the constitutional recognition of the right to withdraw. Research Papers in Law, 5/2004.

No abstract.