This article explores the significant advantages of ADR techniques when dealing with elusive definitions in medical ethics. Part I briefly explores the meaning of definitional inquiry and justifies its important role in debate and achieving truth. Part II illustrates how confusion associated with certain terms leads to faulty reasoning, even in a recent Supreme Court decision. In Part III, some governmental sources of this confusion are revealed. Part IV illustrates the common use of rhetoric in the right-to-die debate as an appeal to emotion, rather than true meaning. Part V attempts to illustrate why this problem greatly affects the medical field, and will recount major technological developments that have accelerated the field beyond the advances of its ethical limits. Parts VI and VII explain the differences in medical and legal definitions of death. Part VIII illustrates how the standard advantages of ADR apply to this problem. Parts IX-XI will explain how ADR can eliminate confusion, discuss the application of ADR to definitional inquiry, and explain how mediation can integrate the input of the medical, legal, and social communities into a better definition. Lastly, Part XII explores whether an elusive win-win outcome is possible.
Bryan A. Kelley,
The Right to Die: Definitional Inquiry and the Search for Truth,
2 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol2/iss2/5