Daar J F
Whittier Law School, USA.
Univ Mich J Law Reform. 1995 Summer;28(4):799-859.
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.
直接民主，即让公民能够起草、传播并制定法律的政治程序，已成为基层组织的避风港。这些基层组织在一个被认为对其关切无动于衷或不友好的立法领域寻求法定认可。最近，一群公民，即医生协助死亡的倡导者，出现在全国舞台上，在三个州发起州公民投票倡议，并承诺继续在全国范围内寻求医生协助死亡合法化。在本文中，达阿尔教授研究了直接民主与临终决策监管之间的相互作用。这项研究表明，医生协助死亡的立法与代议制民主一样，同样容易受到政治纷争的破坏。达阿尔教授认为，直接民主最好用作推动立法行动的动力，而不是取代通过代议制民主立法所特有的研究和妥协。此外，作者主张承认围绕死亡的选择中受宪法保护的自由权益，从而为所有公民提供一个最低限度的保护水平，而不仅仅是那些其立法者或公民有动机将这项基本权利编纂成法的公民。
