Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

On April 2, I very briefly discussed the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Vacco v. Quill (1997).  I promised more. So here, at least, is a bit more. To resume where I left off: the court's opinion, by Chief Justice Rehnquist, said this: "[W]e disagree with respondents' claim that the distinction between refusing lifesaving medical treatment and assisted suicide is 'arbitrary' and 'irrational.' ... Granted, in some cases, the line between the two may not be clear, but certainty is not required, even were it possible. Logic and contemporary practice support New York's judgment that the two acts are different, and New York may therefore, consistent with the Constitution, treat them differently." It had by then become customary for some patients to carry the "do not resuscitate" tag with them. The decision to so label a patient was NOT treated as murder. Providing the patient (a mature, rational patient in a lot of pain) with a pill tha...

I haven't kept up with the law on euthanasia and assisted suicide over the years. At the moment it is a Big Subject, because presumptive Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch is the author of a book on it. So I'm doing some catch-up research. Part of that is familiarizing myself with Vacco v. Quill, a 1997 decision by the Supreme Court that plays a big part in Gorsuch's book. The decision, and all six opinions, may be found here. Despite the proliferation of opinions, the judgment itself was unanimous -- all opinions aside from C.J. Rehnquist' for the court were concurrences. Here's a brief quote from the Rehnquist opinion. I promise to come back soon and say something judgmental about it. Please regard this post as a mere IOU. Anyway: the quote: "[W]e disagree with respondents' claim that the distinction between refusing lifesaving medical treatment and assisted suicide is 'arbitrary' and 'irrational.' ... Granted, in some case...