Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:51:31.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Brief For Bioethicists For Privacy as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2021

George J. Annas ,
Leonard H. Glantz  and
Wendy K. Mariner
George J. Annas
Affiliation:
Boston University School of Law and chief, Boston University School of Public Health; Harvard Law School, 1972; Harvard School of Public Health, 1972
Leonard H. Glantz
Affiliation:
Boston University School of Public Health; Boston University School of Law, 1973
Wendy K. Mariner
Affiliation:
Boston University School of Public Health; Columbia University Law School, 1971; Harvard School of Public Health, 1979
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Amicus is an ad hoc group of 57 philosophers, theologians, attorneys and physicians … who teach medical ethics to medical students and physicians. The members believe that permitting competent adults to make important, personal medical decisions in consultation with their physician is a fundamental principle of medical ethics, and that the doctor-patient relationship deserves the constitutional protection the Court has afforded it under the right of privacy.

Type
The Webster Amicus Curiae Briefs: Perspectives on the Abortion Controversy and the Role of the Supreme Court
Information
American Journal of Law & Medicine , Volume 15 , Issue 2-3 , 1989 , pp. 169 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This is a summary of the “Brief For Bioethicists For Privacy As Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellees.” The brief may be found at Congressional Information Service Microfiche, United States Supreme Court Records and Briefs, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Card No. 42.

References

1 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

2 Id. at 486.

3 Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972).

4 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

5 Id. at 163.

6 Id. at 164.

7 Id. at 165-66.

8 Id. at 166.

9 Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 219 (1973) (Douglas, J., concurring).

10 Id.

11 Id. at 197.

12 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellants at 21 n.15, Webster v. Reproductive Health Servs., 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989).

13 428 U.S. 52 (1976).

14 City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 445 (1983).

l5 Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 763 (1986).

17 Roe, 410 U.S. at 159.

18 Id. at 162.

19 Id. at 117-18.

20 Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 217 (1973) (Douglas, J., concurring).

21 Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 74 (1976).

22 Goldstein, R., Mother-Love and Abortion: A Legal Interpretation 81 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Jonsen, A., Seigler, M. & Winslade, W., Clinical Ethics 62 (2d ed. 1986)Google Scholar.

23 Mo. Ann. Stat. § 188.205 (Vernon Supp. 1989).

24 See id.

25 Elias, S. & Annas, G., Reproductive Genetics and the Law 63 (1987)Google Scholar and sources cited therein.

26 Id. at 83.

27 See, e.g.. In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647, cert, denied, 429 U.S. 922 (1976); In re Storar, 52 N.Y.2d 363, 420 N.E.2d 64, 438 N.Y.S.2d 266 (1981); Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728, 370 N.E.2d 417 (1977).

28 In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10 at 39, 355 A.2d 647 at 663.

29 In re A. C., 533 A.2d 611 (App. D.C. 1987), vacated, 539 A.2d 203 (D.C. 1988).

30 Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. 1988), cert, granted sub nom. Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Dep't of Health, 109 S. Ct. 3240 (U.S. July 3, 1989) (No. 88-1503).

31 Saikewicz, 373 Mass. at 742, 370 N.E.2d at 426.