Quick Summary
Dr. Harold Glucksberg (plaintiff) and other physicians challenged Washington’s law criminalizing assisted suicide as unconstitutional. They argued that it violated a fundamental right protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case progressed from district court to the Ninth Circuit and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. The core issue was whether there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide. The Supreme Court held that there is no such fundamental right under the Due Process Clause, thereby upholding Washington’s ban on assisted suicide.
Facts of the Case
Dr. Harold Glucksberg (plaintiff), along with other physicians, sought to challenge a Washington state law that criminalized aiding another person in attempting suicide. These physicians often treated patients with terminal illnesses and contended that they would assist in ending the lives of these patients if it were not for the prohibition set by the state law.
The statute in question made it a felony to promote a suicide attempt, punishable by imprisonment and fines. The physicians argued that the law infringed on a fundamental liberty interest to choose one’s manner of death, a right they believed was protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
After lower courts ruled in favor of Dr. Glucksberg, the case was taken to the United States Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of Washington’s assisted-suicide ban.
Procedural History
- Dr. Harold Glucksberg and other physicians filed a lawsuit against the State of Washington challenging the constitutionality of the state’s assisted-suicide law.
- The United States District Court ruled in favor of Glucksberg, declaring the law unconstitutional.
- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision.
- The State of Washington appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to review the case.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment include a fundamental right to assisted suicide.
Rule of Law
The Due Process Clause does not protect a fundamental right to assisted suicide under the United States Constitution, and states have legitimate interests in preserving human life and preventing suicide.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the nation’s history, legal traditions, and practices, noting that assisting suicide has been historically viewed as a crime and morally condemnable. The Court observed that despite changes in medical technology and societal attitudes towards end-of-life decisions, there has been no significant movement to legalize assisted suicide.
The majority opinion held that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. The Court emphasized that states have an interest in preserving life, preventing suicide, and maintaining the integrity of the medical profession.
In reaching this decision, the Court relied on its precedents, which reserve special protection for fundamental rights rooted in the nation’s history and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Since assisted suicide is not among these historically protected rights, any prohibition against it only requires rational basis review rather than strict scrutiny.
Conclusion
The United States Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision, upholding Washington’s assisted-suicide ban as constitutional.
Concurring Opinions
Justice O’Connor, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer in part, concurred, emphasizing the importance of addressing concerns about pain relief for terminally ill patients without legalizing assisted suicide.
Key Takeaways
- The Due Process Clause does not include a fundamental right to assisted suicide.
- States have a strong interest in prohibiting assisted suicide to preserve life and uphold medical ethics.
- The case reaffirmed that not all important personal interests are protected by the Constitution as fundamental rights requiring heightened judicial protection.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What criteria must be met for a right to be considered fundamental under the Due Process Clause?
To qualify as fundamental under the Due Process Clause, a right must be deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.
- For example: The right to marry has been recognized as fundamental because it is historically deep-seated in the nation’s tradition and integral to the orderly pursuit of happiness.
How do courts apply rational basis review to evaluate state laws concerning personal liberties?
In rational basis review, courts assess whether a state law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The state does not have to prove its case beyond all doubt but needs to demonstrate that the legislation in question has a reasonable link to achieving its goal.
- For example: A state law requiring motorcycle helmets might be challenged as infringing on personal freedom, but it would likely be upheld since it is rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in public safety.
Why might a state have an interest in prohibiting assisted suicide, and what are the implications for medical ethics?
States may prohibit assisted suicide to preserve life, protect vulnerable groups from coercion and abuse, maintain medical standards of care, and avoid undermining the role of health professionals as healers. The implications for medical ethics include reinforcing the commitment to life preservation and preventing erosion of trust between patients and medical practitioners.
- For example: A state might argue that permitting assisted suicide could lead to pressure on vulnerable individuals to end their lives prematurely, thus breaching ethical standards around valuing human life and autonomy.
References
Was this case brief helpful?