Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)
Saturday, November 28, 2009 at 11:04AM Read the opinion here.
Issue. Did a Washington state law that prohibited "causing" or "aiding" a suicide violate the Constitution?
Background. The state of Washington always had a law against assisted suicide. Under the law at the time, a person who assisted a suicide committed a felony and could be imprisoned for up to five years and fined up to $10,000. There was an exception for one who withheld life-sustaining treatment at the patient's direction. A group of doctors and patients (the patients subsequently died), among others, sued and claimed that the law violated the Constitution.
The District Court invalidated the Washington statute. But, that decision was overruled by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, however, reheard the case, en banc (more than just a three person panel), and affirmed the District Court decision. That Court noted that "the Constitution encompasses a due process liberty interest in controlling the time and manner of one's death." The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the constitutionality of Washington's statute.
Court's Analysis. Since this was a substantive due process cased based on a liberty right, the Court examined the history of laws prohibiting suicide and assisting suicide. While some of the harsh penalties for suicide have been abandoned (especially those applied to the family members of those who committed suicide), there has been a general prohibition against suicide for over 700 years.
With that backdrop, the Court examined which fundamental rights and liberties are protected by the Due Process Clause. There are two primary features in determining these rights. First, there is a fundamental right and/or liberty if it is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" such that "neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed." Second, there is a fundamental right and/or liberty if there is a careful description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest and that our Nation's history, legal tradition and practices provides the crucial "guideposts for responsible decision making" that directs the Due Process Clause in such a direction.
Therefore, the question before the Court was whether there was a "liberty" specifically protected by the Due Process Clause which included the right to commit suicide. If there is a right to commit suicide, then there is a corresponding right to assist in one's suicide. There is nothing in our Nation's history or tradition which has allowed for suicide. This is unlike refusing life-sustaining efforts because involuntary medication has traditionally been regarded as battery. It sounds strange, but you have the right not to accept medication that will result in your death, but you cannot engage in some positive action that will cause your own death.
The State has an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life. Further, suicide is a serious public health problem, especially among vulnerable groups. Many who contemplate suicide are depressed or suffer mental disorders. The State also has an interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession, with the physicians role as a "healer" and not a "killer." The State also has an interest in protecting vulnerable groups, such as the poor, elderly, and disabled from being coerced into suicide. Finally, the State may legitimately fear that assisted suicide may eventually lead to involuntary euthanasia.
These interests are so strong and overcome the lack of any history or tradition of a liberty right to commit suicide. As the Court concludes:
Throughout the Nation, Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality of physician-assisted suicide. Our holding permits the debate to continue, as it should in a democratic society.