ILNews

Lecture in honor of Myles N. Brand Nov. 9

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

George P. Smith II, a visiting fellow at Indiana University's Center for Law, Ethics, and Applied Research in Health Information, will deliver the center's first public lecture in tribute to his late friend, former IU President Myles N. Brand.

The lecture, "Managing End-of-Life Care: Medico-Legal, Social, Ethical, and Philosophical Challenges," is at 4 p.m. Nov. 9 at Indiana University Maurer School of Law's Moot Court Room.

Smith, a professor at The Catholic University of America Law School and CLEAR's first-ever visiting fellow, has devoted significant time throughout his career to the subject of palliative care. His lecture will analyze the two foundational challenges to human health care at the end-stage of life: the extent to which a patient with a terminal illness can control his or her treatment options, and the level of state control and intervention in the dying process.

"The topics of death and of dying are a popular concern," Smith said. "There will never be one, unified national consensus on the extent to which the state should protect the dying and allow its members to die a 'good death' without unnecessary suffering and with compassion."

Smith cites a 2006 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center that found an overwhelming majority that supports laws giving patients the right to decide whether they wish to be kept alive through medical treatment at the end-stage of life.

"This finding serves to buttress the conclusion that personal autonomy, and the right to refuse any or all treatment, is a constitutional liberty of high order," Smith said. "It is the responsibility of the state to safeguard and protect this liberty."

Smith is dedicating the CLEAR lecture in honor of Brand, who succumbed to pancreatic cancer in 2009.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT