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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT