title: Direct democracy and bioethical choices: voting life and death at the ballot box.
abstract: Direct democracy, the political process that enables citizens to draft, circulate, and enact laws, has become the refuge for grassroots organizations seeking statutory validation in a legislative arena perceived to be unresponsive or unfriendly to their concerns. One group of citizens, advocates for physician-aid-in-dying, has recently emerged on the national scene, sponsoring state ballot initiatives in three states and pledging to continue their quest for legalization of physician-assisted death throughout the country. In this Article, Professor Daar examines the interplay between direct democracy and regulation of end-of-life decision making. This examination reveals that lawmaking of physician-aid-in-dying, is no less susceptible to the ravages of political wrangling than is representative democracy. Professor Daar argues that direct democracy is best utilized as a spur to legislative action rather than as a replacement for the study and compromise unique to legislating through representative democracy. In addition, the author advocates recognition of a constitutionally protected liberty interest in choices surrounding death, thus providing a threshold level of protection to all citizens, not just those whose lawmakers or citizens are motivated to codify this fundamental right.
authors.affiliation: Whittier Law School, USA.
authors.forename: J F
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Daar
mesh_terms: D026688:Bioethical Issues / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003709:Democracy; D033101:Euthanasia, Active, Voluntary / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D011057:Politics; D011640:Public Policy; D012297:Right to Die / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D017236:Suicide, Assisted / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States