A thoughtful appraisal of how the courts have responded to right-to-die issues. Although the Supreme Court has held that there's a constitutionally protected ``right to die,'' this right is not absolute, for the state has an interest in protecting and preserving life. Urofsky (History & Law/Virginia Commonwealth University; A Conflict of Rights, 1991, etc.) examines the balancing that takes place between these often conflicting interests. He looks at the now-familiar Karen Ann Quinlan, Nancy Cruzan, and Baby Jane Doe cases, as well as lesser-known but equally difficult ones. Although he focuses on how the law has tackled the right to die, Urofsky also glances at theology's attempts to deal with the problem, and he summarizes the views of Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and various non-Western religions on suicide and euthanasia. He looks at how the law has regarded mercy killings; the rights of the incompetent (e.g., those in comas and handicapped newborns); and even the rights of convicts on death row to refuse to appeal their sentences. Advance directives (``living wills'') and proxy statements giving durable power of attorney to another to make health-care decisions are also explored (sample forms are included), along with some caveats about meeting individual state requirements. Urofsky makes clear why doctors and hospitals, anxious to protect themselves from liability, often insist on procedural safeguards that obstruct the patient's personal autonomy. To those who argue that the courts are not the proper place for making the tough decisions about life and death, Urofsky asks where else a society based on the rule of law can turn. A cool appraisal of the legal standing of the right to die, warmed by human stories that linger in the memory.
Pub Date: May 1, 1993
ISBN: 0-684-19344-2
Page Count: 224
Publisher: Scribner
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: April 1, 1993
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis...
Privately published by Strunk of Cornell in 1918 and revised by his student E. B. White in 1959, that "little book" is back again with more White updatings.
Stricter than, say, Bergen Evans or W3 ("disinterested" means impartial — period), Strunk is in the last analysis (whoops — "A bankrupt expression") a unique guide (which means "without like or equal").Pub Date: May 15, 1972
ISBN: 0205632645
Page Count: 105
Publisher: Macmillan
Review Posted Online: Oct. 28, 2011
Kirkus Reviews Issue: May 1, 1972
This is not the Nutcracker sweet, as passed on by Tchaikovsky and Marius Petipa. No, this is the original Hoffmann tale of 1816, in which the froth of Christmas revelry occasionally parts to let the dark underside of childhood fantasies and fears peek through. The boundaries between dream and reality fade, just as Godfather Drosselmeier, the Nutcracker's creator, is seen as alternately sinister and jolly. And Italian artist Roberto Innocenti gives an errily realistic air to Marie's dreams, in richly detailed illustrations touched by a mysterious light. A beautiful version of this classic tale, which will captivate adults and children alike. (Nutcracker; $35.00; Oct. 28, 1996; 136 pp.; 0-15-100227-4)
Pub Date: Oct. 28, 1996
ISBN: 0-15-100227-4
Page Count: 136
Publisher: Harcourt
Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010
Kirkus Reviews Issue: Aug. 15, 1996
BOOK REVIEW
BOOK REVIEW
© Copyright 2025 Kirkus Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Follow
Popular in this Genre
We can’t wait for you to join Kirkus!
It’s free and takes less than 10 seconds!
Already have an account? Log in.
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
Welcome Back!
OR
Sign in with GoogleTrouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.
