The empirical evidence regarding the implementation and impact of the federal Patient Self-Determination Act is examined in this article. The Act was designed to increase the use of advance medical directives in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's Cruzan decision. Research shows that the law has had little effect and that the use of advance directives has scant relation to medical treatment and care. Various policy alternatives for the right to die are also examined. The authors conclude with an analysis of the likely impact of medical costs, fruitless treatment, and rationed health care on limiting life-prolonging treatment.
We examine existing empirical studies addressing the intersection of American courts and the Executive and explore multiple aspects of dynamics between these two primary branches of government. We assay the literature on the formal powers of the president and how courts have shaped and adjusted the legal authority and reach of the federal executive. We also investigate how presidents can influence American public policy through less direct pathways such as agenda-setting. However, one of the president’s most renowned powers is that of appointment—and we assess how presidents have helped shape the landscape of American law through the appointment of judicial actors and consider the politics of the federal judicial selection process. Finally, we address the president’s primary legal arm—the Solicitor General’s Office—and investigate the office’s influence on Supreme Court policy-making.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.