Washington V. Glucksberg brings a monumental decision to a question that has been asked time and time again, is assisted suicide Constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The way the Supreme Court uses the Due Process Clause, while only focusing on two aspects of it, leaves many questions unanswered and a lot left to be desired, but the unanimous decision gives it great power, considering unanimous decisions do not usually happen. I feel the courts decision was wrong when defining our “historically rooted” rights and liberties, and the way the Supreme Court limited the definition of due process when servicing a states interest. I believe our rights and liberties are ever changing as society evolves and technologies continues to advance,
…show more content…
With the American tradition defined as a “yard stick” by Judge Rehnquist it becomes extremely difficult to expand upon the new liberties we all enjoy in the 21st century. The fear of assisted-suicide being used against mentally ill and disabled is a baseless on, that could be easily negotiated by strictly defining the terms it can be used under. The Supreme Court also claims the state has a great interest in the preservation of human life, but what about the right to happiness that is diminished when faced with a terminal illness, having to suffer through the pain of death. The Supreme Court made a grave misstep when ruling so harshly on this topic, but their ruling has not stopped countless cases physician assisted-suicide to still take place. The ruling of the Supreme Court is one that still stands today, but with ever passing year state laws preventing physician assisted-suicide grow weaker and weaker. 2008 the voters of Washington approved the Washington Death with Dignity Act, creating guidelines for when a physician is used to terminate a life. Our deeply rooted rights and liberates need to become every changing to keep up with the development of society and the changing of technology to fully protect every American from
With the American tradition defined as a “yard stick” by Judge Rehnquist it becomes extremely difficult to expand upon the new liberties we all enjoy in the 21st century. The fear of assisted-suicide being used against mentally ill and disabled is a baseless on, that could be easily negotiated by strictly defining the terms it can be used under. The Supreme Court also claims the state has a great interest in the preservation of human life, but what about the right to happiness that is diminished when faced with a terminal illness, having to suffer through the pain of death. The Supreme Court made a grave misstep when ruling so harshly on this topic, but their ruling has not stopped countless cases physician assisted-suicide to still take place. The ruling of the Supreme Court is one that still stands today, but with ever passing year state laws preventing physician assisted-suicide grow weaker and weaker. 2008 the voters of Washington approved the Washington Death with Dignity Act, creating guidelines for when a physician is used to terminate a life. Our deeply rooted rights and liberates need to become every changing to keep up with the development of society and the changing of technology to fully protect every American from