Balancing the right to die with competing interests: a socio-legal enigma.
D000028:Abortion, Induced; D000367:Age Factors; D002961:Civil Rights; D003416:Criminal Law; D003657:Decision Making; D005066:Euthanasia, Passive; D005333:Fetus; D005610:Freedom; D015276:Health Care Rationing; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D033222:Judicial Role; D007603:Jurisprudence; D007872:Legal Guardians; D016365:Liability, Legal; D016743:Mental Competency; D018579:Patient Selection; D018458:Persistent Vegetative State; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D010820:Physicians; D011247:Pregnancy; D037841:Pregnant People; D018907:Privacy; D011379:Prognosis; D011788:Quality of Life; D012015:Reference Standards; D012297:Right to Die; D012945:Social Values; D020458:Third-Party Consent; D016312:Treatment Refusal; D014481:United States; D026712:Value of Life
Bartling v. Superior Court; Death and Euthanasia; Legal Approach