Year: 1997 Source: Fordham Urban Law Journal, v.14, no.4, (Summer 1997), p.817-857 SIEC No: 20031031

The author examines the development of the law legalizing passively hastening death (PHD), noting its reliance on distinguishing PHD from actively hastening death (AHD), & highlighting the weaknesses of these arguments. He then analyzes the central role of consent in legitimating PHD & applies this analysis to AHD. Finally, he concludes that those arguments that can be made against AHD can be equally applied to PHD & should, therefore, be rejected in the latter as they are in the former.