Washington v. Glucksberg
Washington v. Glucksberg is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the legality of physician-assisted suicide. The case arose when the Ninth Circuit Court struck down Washington state's ban on assisted suicide, asserting that terminally ill, competent adults have the right to seek assistance in hastening their deaths through prescribed medication. However, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed this decision, with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist asserting that the right to refuse medical treatment differs fundamentally from the right to receive assistance in dying. The Court emphasized that substantive due process should only protect rights that are deeply rooted in American history and traditions, which, according to the justices, universally reject the notion of a right to commit suicide. The ruling highlighted the state's legitimate interest in preserving human life, while also acknowledging that some justices expressed broader views on personal autonomy. This case remains a critical reference point in the ongoing debate over assisted suicide and individual rights in the context of end-of-life decisions.
Washington v. Glucksberg
Date: June 26, 1997
Citation: 117 S.Ct. 2258
Issue: Physician-assisted suicide
Significance: The Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee any right to have assistance in committing suicide.
In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990), the Supreme Court “assumed and strongly suggested” that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the traditional right of competent adults to refuse medical treatment, including life-support systems. Building on this substantive reading of the due process clause, the Ninth Circuit struck down Washington state’s ban on assisted suicide, and it recognized that terminally ill competent adults have the right to hasten their deaths with medication prescribed by physicians.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower court’s ruling. Speaking for a majority, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist found that the decision to terminate medical treatment was fundamentally different from providing active assistance in a suicide. The use of substantive due process, he emphasized, should be limited to protecting those rights and liberties that are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions,” and he noted that this tradition had almost universally rejected any notion of a right to commit suicide. Washington’s law, moreover, furthered the state’s legitimate interest in protecting human life. Four justices, while concurring in Rehnquist’s ruling, expressed more expansive views of individual rights to personal autonomy protected by substantive due process, recognizing some right to avoid pain and suffering.