WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 521 U.S. 702

(1997)

By: Holly Andrews

BASIC INFO❖Washington

• State of Washington and it’s Attorney General

❖Glucksberg et. Al• Harold Glucksberg, M. D., Abigail Halperin, M. D.,

Thomas A. Preston, M. D., and Peter Shalit, M. D; Three terminally ill patients; and an “nonprofit organization that counsels people considering physician assisted suicide.”

❖Wash Rev. Code 9A.36.060(1) (1994)• The law states that a person is guilty of promoting

suicide when they knowingly assist or aid in that attempt.

• Washington’s Assisted Suicide Ban

SUICIDE STATISTICS

❖“Cancer patients have nearly twice the incidence

of suicide than the general population. Lung,

stomach, and head and neck cancers have the

highest suicide rates among all cancer types. Up to

8.5% of terminally ill cancer patients express a

sustained and pervasive wish for an early death, and

in one survey of terminally ill patients, 10% of

patients reported “seriously pursuing” physician

assisted suicide.”

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT

❖ Due Process Clause● “No state shall make or enforce any law which

shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

❖ Liberty?

WEST DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

❖ Decision of West District Court• In favor of Glucksberg

❖ Reasons?• Supreme court cases Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept.

of Health and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey

❖ Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health • Case Details• Decided that if a patient was mentally competent

and they wished to refuse medical treatment, then they were allowed too without providing evidence of their decision.

COURT OF APPEALS

❖ Constitutionality of the Assisted Suicide Ban

❖ Decision• Reversal of District Court

❖ Heard before the Ninth Circuit en banc• Decision

• In favor of Glucksberg

❖ Right to die?• Liberty interest/clause

• Assisted suicide

• In the 8-3 decision of the Ninth Circuit, it was found that there was a “right to determine one’s time and manner of death” in liberty interest.

SUPREME COURT

❖ Due Process law and Nation’s history• Suicide and assisted suicide in the past

• There have never been exceptions with assisted suicide for patients in the past. The court discussed the fact that assisted suicide had been argued in other states and places, and was usually re-affirmed to be illegal.

• During this time, the President of the United States signed an act that restricted funding with physician assisted suicide.

SUPREME COURT CONT.

❖ The court decided that the right to being

assisted in committing suicide was not within the

liberty interest of the Due Process Clause. They

decided that Glucksberg et al. was saying that

the right to commit suicide and have assistance

in that act was within the liberty interest of the

Due Process Clause and that interest had never

been in the Nation’s past or traditions.

CRUZAN V. DIRECTOR

❖ The argument with the decision of Cruzan v.

Director was that their case’s decision was

made because it was found in the Nation’s

history that forced administration of medication

was unconstitutional and patients have always

been able to refuse medical treatment.

GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS

❖ Some of the governental issues include

“prohibiting intentional killing and preserving

human life, preventing the serious public health

problem of suicide, and protecting the medical

profession's integrity and ethics and maintaining

physicians' role as their patients' healers.” These

had to be found so that the Due Process Clause

would be considered valid and the assisted

suicide ban of Washington State would be found

constitutional.

THE DECISION

❖ The previous opinions were given by Court Chief

Justice Rehnquist and the opinion was concurred

by the rest of the justices as well as the decision.

The final vote was a unanimous decision of 9-0

favoring Washington State and reversing the

previous Ninth Circuit decision. The case was

remanded back to a lower court.

AFTER THE DECISION❖ Since the Washington v. Glucksberg case, three states

have adopted Death with Dignity Acts. Oregon’s Death

with Dignity Act was actually approved in 1994 before

Washington v. Glucksberg took place, and was put into

effect a year after the case. In 2008 Washington

adopted a Death with Dignity Act that went into effect

in 2009, and Vermonts was approved and enacted in

May of this year. A Death with Dignity Act states that,

“These laws allow mentally competent, terminally-ill

adult state residents to voluntarily request and receive

a prescription medication to hasten their death.” In

Washington, these patients have to have less than six

months to live.

IS IT RIGHT?

❖ The argument for and against euthanasia and

assisted suicide is one that will probably

continue for a long time. The Supreme Court’s

ruling was valid in the fact that the assisted

suicide ban was not unconstitutional, however,

whether or not the assisted suicide is right or not

is a completely different argument. • Personal Views