The State Of Washington And The United States

Physician assisted suicide was brought to mainstream attention in the 1990’s due to Dr. Kevorkian’s “suicide machine," who claims to have assisted over 100 suicide deaths of terminally ill patients with Alzheimer’s disease (Dickinson, p. 8). In the early 1990’s, for the first time in United States history the issue was brought to the voting polls in California, Washington, and Oregon (Dickinson, p. 9). The bill was passed in Oregon; legally allowing physicians to facilitate death of the terminally ill, but voters fails to pass the bill in Washington and California (Dickinson, p. 9). In 2008 voters in Washington State passed the Washington Death with Dignity Act (Dickinson, p. 277). Today

The specific Amendment and issue I am discussing is Amendment Number 9 Assisted Suicide. Assisted suicide is “the suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, affected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose” (Oxford Living Dictionaries). This falls under the 9th Amendment; the 9th Amendment “was part of the Bill of Rights that was added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791. It says that all the rights not listed in the Constitution belong to the people, not the government. The rights of the people are not limited to just the rights listed in the constitution. The text from the Constitution states the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or

The court case of Washington vs Glucksberg decided assisted suicide was unconstitutional, in 1997. Basically, Dr. Harold Glucksberg along with four other physicians and a few terminally ill patients went to court to argue with the ban on assisted suicide. Court decision was 9-0,

One of the most controversial end-of-life decisions is “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS). This method of suicide involves a physician providing a patient, at his or her own request, with a lethal dose of medication, which the patient self-administers. The ethical acceptability and the desirability of legalization of this practice both continue to cause controversy (Raus, Sterckx, Mortier 1). Vaco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg were landmark decisions on the issue of physician-assisted suicide and a supposed Constitutional right to commit suicide with another's assistance. In Washingotn v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state of Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was not unconstitutional.

Who dictates how you live your life? How does one define life and when that life should end? If you become terminally ill, would you like the choice to choose how your life ends? In the United States, assisted suicide, is a highly-debated issue. On one side, there are many in support of allowing a person the right to end their life with dignity at the time of their choosing. While others believe, it is a moral right to sustain life and leave a person’s exit from this world to a higher power. The two opposing viewpoints have both compassionate reasons and disadvantages; nevertheless, a person’s human rights as an individual are the most important aspect to uphold.

The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and a panel of judges from that court heard the case and overturned the lower court’s ruling on the basis that there has never been asserted that there is a constitutional right to aid in killing yourself which was upheld by a court of final jurisdiction such as the Supreme Court. When the case was head by the entire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals they reversed the panel decision and agreed with the district court. They based their decision on the same cases as the lower court as well as the historical and societal views towards the right to die. After considering all this they concluded that through the Constitution there is a liberty interest in determining the time and manner of one’s death. They determined that there was a constitutional right to die and the state law was unconstitutional since it applied to terminally ill patients who were competent to make their own decisions and wished to end their lives. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court which after hearing arguments decided that the Constitution was not violated by the state law and found that the state had the legal right to pass such a law.

In 1991, by a vote of 54 to 46 percent, Washington State voters defeated Initiative 119, a measure that would have permitted physicians to provide assisted suicide by a prescription for an intentional lethal overdose of drugs. After that, three attempts were made in the Washington State legislature to transform assisted suicide, which was a crime in Washington, into a “medical treatment.” All three attempts failed. However, in 2008, assisted-suicide proponents targeted the state for a massive effort to make Washington only the second state to approve assisted suicide. With a voter initiative on the 2008 ballot, they succeeded, by a vote of 57.91 to 42.09 percent, in making it legal for doctors to help their patients commit suicide. There had been over 340 cases in the year

Currently, physician-assisted suicide or death is illegal in all states except Oregon, Vermont, Montana and Washington. Present law in other states express that suicide is not a crime, but assisting in suicide is. Supporters of legislation legalizing assisted suicide claim that the moral right to life should encompass the right to voluntary death. Opponents of assisted suicide claim that society has a moral and civic duty to preserve the lives of innocent persons. There is a slippery slope involving the legalizing assisted suicide. Concern that assisted suicide allowed on the basis of mercy or compassion, can and will lead to the urging of the death for morally unjustifiable reasons is

In 1990, physician-assisted suicide became well known around the United States when Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a retired pathologist, assisted a 54-year-old Alzheimer’s patient end her life. He would go on to willfully help dozens of terminally ill people end their lives. He spent eight years in prison after being convicted of second-degree murder in the death of 130 ailing patients whose lives he helped end (Kevorkian, 2011). Many consider him a hero, setting a platform for reform. In 1997 Oregon lawmakers approved a statue, Death with Dignity, making it legal for doctors to prescribe lethal doses of a medication to help terminally ill patients end

Physician assisted suicide is a controversial topic that should be practiced due to one's legal rights as a American, and as a human being. In previous cases in the Supreme Court, euthanasia has been discussed and many decisions about

This article talks about the death with dignity act which was passed by the state of Oregon in 1994. With 51.3% of voters being in favor of the act, Oregon became the first state to legalize physician assisted suicide in the united states. The approval of this act has been regarded as one of the most controversial ballots in the history of Oregon. Many adversaries to the bill have challenged the bill's impact on patients as they feared that many patients would go to end their lives even if their illness isn't really severe and that many would abuse life and health insurance policies. The legality of this act has been challenged many times with some of them including when former congress and US attorney general John Ashcroft from 1997 to 2003

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld court decisions in Washington and New York states that criminalized physician-assisted suicide on July 26, 1997.12 They found that the Constitution did not provide any “right to die,” however, they allowed individual states to govern whether or not they would prohibit or permit physician-assisted suicide. Without much intervention from the states individuals have used their right to refuse medical treatment resulting in controversial passive forms of euthanasia being used by patients to die with dignity such as choosing not to be resuscitated, stopping medication, drinking, or eating, or turning off respirators.9

A retired social worker, Smith, was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 86. He said that he has no regrets but worries about the pain. "Death itself is not a fearful consideration for me," he said. "But the process of dying could be if it were extremely uncomfortable." He is in no haste to die but expects that he will feel severe pain when the cancer reaches its final phases and when it happens; he would want his doctor to be able to prescribe him with a toxic dose of medication that he can use to end his life

The founding fathers of this great nation, America, have fought for many years to obtain the freedom we now enjoy. The Constitution outlines numerous privileges its citizens are afforded but, where should the lines be drawn as it regards this freedom to choose and to what degree should it be legal for one to be aided in exercising this freedom? An increasing number of terminally ill patients have sought the help of physicians to ease their suffering and help them “die with dignity.” The name Brittany Maynard became popular over the last year as she made the decision to relocate to Oregon, which is one of the four states in which physician assisted suicide is legal. She was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer and was given a prognosis of

In 1994, Oregon voters passed the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which exempted, “from civil or criminal liability physicians who, in compliance with specific safeguards, dispense or prescribe (but not administer) a lethal dose of drugs upon the request of the terminally ill patient.” Oregon, to this day, remains the only state within the Union to allow physician-assisted suicide. In 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a landmark case that, although there was no constitutionally protected right to physician-assisted suicide, states have permitted to pass laws allowing it. Thus, the issue of euthanasia remains widely open to philosophical, political, legal, and ethical challenges.