CFD Severs Ties with Society for the Right to Die - Vol. 6 No. 1 - Winter 1980

Oct 13, 2026

Concern for Dying’s Board of Directors voted unanimously in fall 1979 to sever its relationship with the Society for the Right to Die. The split stemmed from philosophical disagreements over right-to-die legislation, including concern that existing laws limit, rather than reinforce, patients’ ability to refuse treatment. The text discusses California’s Natural Death Act (1976), warnings about lack of protection for accident or trauma victims, and how recent court decisions have advanced patients’ rights to refuse treatment while still requiring practical implementation in healthcare.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryReligion & Spirituality

FormatPDF

Pages9

Reading Time23 min

AccessFree to download

Philosophical Differences Cited

Convincing the System to Leave You Alone

CFD Established in 1967

The Board of Directors of Concern forDying has voted unanimously to sever itsrelationship with the Society for the Rightto Die.This action was taken in the fall of1979,too late to be announced in the lastissue of the newsletter. ## Philosophical Differences Cited The directors'decision was the result ofgrowing philosophical differences with theSociety,particularly about the question ofright-to-die legislation.The Society iscommitted to promoting legislation.Concern for Dying does not unreservedlysupport the passage of laws,believing thatsome which are now in effect limit ratherthan reinforce a person's right to refusetreatment.An example is the California ## Convincing the System to Leave You Alone CFD Severs Ties with Society for the Right to Die Natural Death Act,adopted in 1976.Authorities in law and jurisprudence havewarned that this statute may actuallyhinder implementation of the wishes of adying patient because no protection isprovided for victims of accident or trauma.Legislators are now attempting to revise it. In light of the California experience andthat of states with similar laws,Concernfor Dying believes that proposed legislationmust be evaluated in the context of existingprotections.A body of case law precedentfrom federal and state courts has upheldthe right of patients to refuse treatmenteven when death may result.Legislationwhich in any way restricts or dilutes theexercise of either the constitutional right ofprivacy or the common law right to bodily George Annas: "To protect the rights of dying patients you have to begin by guaranteeing the rights of all patients.” Leonard Glantz: “Although the idea of Living Wills is a good one,Living Will legislation has produced difficulties.” Court decisions in the last six years have substantiallyadvanced the right of patients to refuse treatment.Itremains,however,for this right to be translated into healthcare practice so that it can be invoked by the terminally illwithout the delay and uncertainty involved in seeking courtsanction. At Concern for Dying's Eleventh Annual Conference inDecember,two Boston University School of Medicinefaculty members,Leonard H.Glantz,an assistant professorof legal medicine,and George J.Annas,associate professorof law and medicine,reviewed the status of patients'constitutional and common law rights and discussed ways inwhich these rights could be implemented. The fundamental principle guiding recent court decisionshas been the concept of right of privacy,Mr.Glantz toldthe conference audience.A landmark decision based on thisconcept was handed down by the United States SupremeCourt in Roe v.Wade in 1973.In that case the court arguedthat a woman's decision about whether to terminate apregnancy was protected by the constitutionally guaranteedright of privacy. In recent cases involving hopelessly ill patients—the 1976Quinlan decision was one example—the courts have citedRoe v.Wade and carried its reasoning a step further,holding that the right of privacy includes the right to refusetreatment. One apparent exception to this trend has been a series ofcases involving Jehovah's Witnesses,whose religion bars theuse of blood transfusions.Transfusions are routinelyordered by the courts for the minor children of Jehovah'sWitnesses,when their survival is at stake.But they have (Continued on page 2) Vol.6 No.1-Winter 1980 self-determination should not be encour-aged.The change most urgently needed isnot a change in law but in attitudes. ## CFD Established in 1967 Announcing the Board's decision,President Elizabeth Gaillard pointed outthat Concern for Dying was established in1967 under the name Euthanasia Educa-tional Fund (later Council).Eight yearslater,before the problems connected withright-to-die legislation were clearlyperceived,CFD directors revitalized theSociety (which had been inactive for 15years)to work in the legislative arena.Since then the Society has received virtually

FAQs

Why did Concern for Dying sever ties with the Society for the Right to Die?

The Board cited growing philosophical differences, especially regarding right-to-die legislation and whether proposed laws would truly protect patients’ ability to refuse treatment.

What issue does the document raise about California’s Natural Death Act (1976)?

Authorities warned the statute could hinder implementation of dying patients’ wishes because it provided no protection for victims of accident or trauma, prompting legislative revision attempts.

How did court decisions support patients’ rights to refuse treatment, according to the text?

Courts relied on privacy and informed consent principles, and advanced the view that the right of privacy includes refusing treatment, while still recognizing the state’s interests in certain circumstances.

Oct 13, 2026

Upload by eBook King