Case Citation: Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
Parties: Washington, Petitioner Glucksberg, Respondent
Facts: Respondents brought a suit against Washington’s state ban on physician-assisted suicides and brought forth that Wash. Rev. Code 9A.36.060(1)(1994) was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Procedural History: A Washington state statute enacted in 1975 provided that a person was guilty of a felony of promoting a suicide attempt when they knowingly caused or aided another person to attempt suicide. In 1994, an action was brought before the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington by several plaintiffs who asserted that the statute was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment which extended to a personal choice by mentally …show more content…
Holdings: Washington’s statue does not violate the due process clause in the Fourth Amendment.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that the Washington statute did not violate the due process clause in the Fourth Amendment. The Petitioner’s interest in protecting those who are not truly competent or those whose decision to hasten death that is not truly voluntary, are sufficiently enough to justify a prohibition against physician-assisted suicide. The Petitioner has an interest in preserving life and assigning a value to a human life that cannot allow another individual to making the decision to end that life. Assisting in a suicide is not a fundamental right. The Petitioners also have an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession as well as protecting the vulnerable in our society from abuse and neglect. The Petitioner’s assisted suicide ban was reasonably related to the promotion and protection of a number of Washington’s important and legitimate
Parties: Washington, Petitioner Glucksberg, Respondent
Facts: Respondents brought a suit against Washington’s state ban on physician-assisted suicides and brought forth that Wash. Rev. Code 9A.36.060(1)(1994) was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Procedural History: A Washington state statute enacted in 1975 provided that a person was guilty of a felony of promoting a suicide attempt when they knowingly caused or aided another person to attempt suicide. In 1994, an action was brought before the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington by several plaintiffs who asserted that the statute was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment which extended to a personal choice by mentally …show more content…
Holdings: Washington’s statue does not violate the due process clause in the Fourth Amendment.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that the Washington statute did not violate the due process clause in the Fourth Amendment. The Petitioner’s interest in protecting those who are not truly competent or those whose decision to hasten death that is not truly voluntary, are sufficiently enough to justify a prohibition against physician-assisted suicide. The Petitioner has an interest in preserving life and assigning a value to a human life that cannot allow another individual to making the decision to end that life. Assisting in a suicide is not a fundamental right. The Petitioners also have an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession as well as protecting the vulnerable in our society from abuse and neglect. The Petitioner’s assisted suicide ban was reasonably related to the promotion and protection of a number of Washington’s important and legitimate