Bioethicist and Her Quadriplegic Husband

Bioethicist and Her Quadriplegic Husband

Recently, Fresh Air‘s Terry Gross interviewed bioethicists Margaret Battin. Battin, a right to die advocate, now navigates the intersection between theory and practice has she attends to her quadriplegic husband.

Here is a description of the interview:

After writing books and essays about end-of-life issues, and advocating for the right to die, bioethicist Margaret Battin is wrestling with the issue in her own family. Her husband, Brooke Hopkins, an English professor at the University of Utah, where she also teaches, broke his neck in a bicycle accident in 2008, leaving him with quadriplegia and dependent on life support technology. In order to breathe, he requires a ventilator some of the time and a diaphragmatic pacer all the time. He receives his nutrition through a feeding tube.

Hopkins’ living will gives him the right to decline this technology, and although he’s chosen to keep living, there have been times he’s told his wife he wants to die, and she’s had to decide how literally to interpret his words.

In her academic life, Battin has also had to reflect on the positions she’s taken in the past to see if she still believes in them. She and her husband are in their early 70s. She’s a distinguished professor of philosophy and still teaches full time. When Hopkins is doing well, and not suffering from one of the many infections that have plagued him since the accident, he’s able to do some teaching from his home, talk with friends who come to visit, go in his wheelchair on walks with his wife and even occasionally get taken to a concert or museum.

Battin and Hopkins were profiled in the cover story of last Sunday’s New York Times Magazine. Battin tells Fresh Air‘s Terry Gross about what happened right after the accident, and the responsibility of deciding if someone is genuine in their wish to die.

Tushnet and Eskridge on Same-Sex Marriage Cases

Tushnet and Eskridge on Same-Sex Marriage Cases

On the most recent episode of Lawyer2Lawyer,

hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams will talk with Constitutional Law Professors Mark Tushnet and William Eskridge about what the history of both the gay rights and the civil rights movements have to say for the future of gay rights in America.

• Harvard Law Professor Mark Tushnet specializes in constitutional law and theory, with a focus in examining the practice of judicial review in the U.S. and worldwide. He has served as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. Currently, his focus is in constitutional history and the development of civil liberties. He is known for his critical and controversial analysis of Supreme Court rulings, including Brown v. The Board of Education and Roe v. Wade.

• William Eskridge, Yale Law Professor, focuses in statutory interpretation. He represented a same-sex-married couple from 1990-1995 who sued for recognition of their marriage and has published many books covering the political framework of gay rights. The historical component of his book GayLaw was the basis of an amicus brief he drafted for the Cato Institute and for much of the Court’s (and dissenting opinion’s) analysis in Lawrence vs. Texas, the decision which made same-sex sexual activity legal in every U.S. state.

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl UPDATE

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl UPDATE

In the fervor over the Supreme Court rulings regarding gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the outcome of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl was lost.  Luckily, Radio Lab, the podcast that initially brought this interesting case to my attention, has updated its coverage of the case following the High Court’s ruling.  

Here is a link to the original story and a description of the update: 

The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Baby Veronica’s adoptive parents, but the ruling itself doesn’t give clear answers to what will happen to Veronica, her two families, and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Tim reaches out to a collection of legal experts to help us understand the latest decision in this complicated, heart-wrenching case.

Stuff You Should Know: “How Miranda Rights Work”

Stuff You Should Know: “How Miranda Rights Work”

Recently the popular, Stuff You Should Know podcast ran an episode titled “How Miranda Rights Work.”  

Here is a synopsis of the episode: 

Back in 1966, the Supreme Court decided that suspects in criminal cases had the right to be reminded that they didn’t have to talk to the fuzz if they didn’t want to, as stated in the 5th amendment. Since that ruling, scores of other cases have shaped and defined the ruling that created a staple of police procedural dramas.

Affirmative Action After Fisher v. the University of Texas

Affirmative Action After Fisher v. the University of Texas

On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down Fisher v. the University of Texas  a highly anticipated affirmative action case.  In a somewhat anticlimactic decision, the High Court remanded “the case back to the lower court to apply “strict scrutiny” to the University’s admissions policy.” NPR’s Talk of the Nation discussed the future of affirmative action after Fisher.