48 Mark Washofsky
4. James Boyd White , Heracles’ Bow(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985). See, in addition, his Justice as Translation(Chicago : University of Chicago Press , 1990) and“What’s An Opinion For?” University of Chicago Law Review 62 (1995), 1363-1369. White is a leading figure in the“Law and Literature” movement, the adherents of which have contributed much to our understanding of the nature of legal rhetoric and interpretation.
5. Stanley Fish , Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities(Cambridge : Harvard University Press , 1980). Fish sharpens his arguments considerably in the essays collected in his Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric , and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies (Durham : Duke University Press , 1989).
7. Karl Llewellyn , The Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study(New Y ork: Oceana, 1951). For a more thorough explication of Llewellyn ’s understanding of legal interpretation, see his magnum opus, The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals(Boston : Little, Brown and Company , 1960), pp. 19-61.
8. Ronald Dworkin , Taking Rights Seriously(Cambridge : Harvard University Press , 1977); A Matter of Principle(Cambridge : Harvard University Press , 1985); and Law's Empire(Cambridge : Harvard University Press , 1986).
9. Newman(note 1, above), p. 18. 10. 7bid., p. 35.
11. The distinction between“killing” and“letting die” is not unique to Jewish thought; it appears frequently in bioethical literature. See Bonnie Steinbock and Alastair Norcross , eds., Killing and Letting Die, Second Edition(New York : Fordham University Press, 1994). For a discussion of the distinction, the criticisms lodged against it, and a defense of the distinction against those criticisms, see Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress , Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Fifth Edition(New York : Oxford University Press , 2001), pp. 139-143. The distinction between killing and letting die also forms the basis of the position of the American Medical Association(AMA) on the issues under discussion here: the AMA countenances the withholding and withdrawal of futile medical treatment but stands