Washington V. Glucksberg Case Summary

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

Physician-assisted suicide is controversial in healthcare and political realms alike. Currently, this end-of-life option is practiced in five states within the United States. Social concerns regarding assisted suicide revolve around ethical quandaries; providing the means to a patient’s death is contradictory to ethical principles of healthcare providers. Political concerns surrounding the legalization of assisted suicide include disparities in healthcare that may lead to certain populations choosing assisted suicide and the stagnation of current care options. While there is no succinct manner in which to declare assisted suicide right or wrong, each individual must address the social and political concerns surrounding the issue when voting for legislation to legalize assisted suicide or pursuing the option for themselves.

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.

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.

1. (problem – PAS): In today’s society, Physician Assisted Suicide is one of the most questionable and debatable issues. Many people feel that it is wrong for people to ask their doctor to help them end their life; while others feel it is their right to choose between the right to life and the right to death. “Suffering has always been a part of human existence.” (PAS) “Physicians have no similar duty to provide actions, such as assistance in suicide, simply because they have been requested by patients. In deciding how to respond to patients ' requests, physicians should use their judgment about the medical appropriateness of the request.” (Bernat, JL) Physician Assisted Suicide differs from withholding or discontinuing medical treatment, it consists of doctors providing a competent patient with a prescription for medication to aid in the use to end their life.

S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and began this case as they do in all Due-Process cases by examining the nation's history, legal traditions and practices. (Casey, 505 at U. S. 833; Cruzan at 497 U. S. 261 and Moore vs. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977). Anglo-American common law has punished or disapproved of assisting suicide for seven centuries and rendering such assistance is a crime in almost every state; such prohibitions have never contained exceptions for those who were near death; the prohibitions in recent years were reexamined and, for the most part reaffirmed in a number of states; and the President signed the Federal Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997, which prohibits the use of federal funds in support of physician-assisted suicide. (521 at U. S. 702). It has always been a crime in the State of Washington for an individual to knowingly cause or aide another person to attempt suicide. (§ 9A.26.060(1). The Court held that § 9A.26.060(1) ban on assisted suicide was not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and did not result in any fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. (521 at U. S. 702). Although many liberties that are protected by the Due Process Clause revolve around personal autonomy, it does not warrant the sweeping conclusion that any and all important, intimate, and personal decisions are so protected. Id. The Court also held in order for Washington's ban to be constitutional, it had

'Choosing death before dishonor is seen by some philosophers and ethicists as a rational reason to commit suicide.' In the 1994 case of Glucksberg v. Washington (Otherwise acknowledged as Compassion In Dying v. The State Of Washington), Harold Glucksberg, alongside the right-to-die organization Compassion In Dying, filed a suit in opposition to the state of Washington for three fatally ill patients he treated.

In 1975 the State of Washington enacted a law that stated that no person was to aid or encourage a person to commit suicide in any given circumstance. This law had some insight pertaining to teenagers because the state didn’t want teenagers to be encouraged in committing suicide. After all, all life is valued and precious. However Dr. Harold Glucksberg in 1976 got together with four other physicians, three terminally ill patients, and a non-profit organization that counsels clients in end of life circumstances.

According to Westrick (2014), the terms “assisted suicide and euthanasia generally mean aiding or assisting another person to kill himself or herself, or killing another person at his or her request, often called ‘active voluntary euthanasia’” (p. 349). Assisted suicide is better defined as a prescriber providing a lethal dose of medication to a patient with the intent of ending a patient’s life (Westrick, 2014). Political debate concerning assisted suicide is ongoing. Currently in the U.S., physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Montana, Washington, Vermont, and California (Death with Dignity, 2016). The purpose of this paper is to review RCW 70.245, The Washington Death with Dignity Act, Initiative 1000, and to identify and address the gap in existing statutory language in the

Physician-assisted suicide has been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court on several occasions, in order to test the constitutional backing. The result is always quite similar: the Supreme Court rules against physician-assisted suicide. There was one particular supreme court case, Washington v. Glucksberg. The state of

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

court decisions (6 Leone). In two previous cases, Washington State vs. Glucksberg and New York vs. Quill, both courts “recognized a constitutional ‘right to die’” (6 Leone). When the Supreme Court ruled that there is no general right to suicide, it did not prohibit state laws and regulation of the right (6 Leone). As a result, Oregon passed the first Death with Dignity Law in 1994, later followed by Vermont and Washington.

Although a patient’s choice of suicide symbolizes an expression of self-determination, there is a great distinction between denying life-sustaining treatments and demanding life-ending treatments. The right to self-determination is a right to allow or reject offered treatments, not to choose what should be offered. The right to refuse life-sustaining interventions does not correlate with a right to force others to hasten their death. The inability of physicians to inhibit death does not mean that physicians are allowed to help induce death.

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.