Other
521 U.S. 702 (1997)
Study notes for Washington v. Glucksberg: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
There is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Washington v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court reinforced the importance of a rigorous standard for identifying fundamental rights under the Due Process Clause. The Court applied a two-part test, which required that a claimed right be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.' Professors might emphasize how the Court's refusal to recognize physician-assisted suicide as a fundamental right underscores the limitation of judicial interpretation of constitutional rights, especially in matters of life and death. Furthermore, the Court's decision indicates a strong deference to state legislatures in matters of public policy, particularly with respect to moral and ethical issues surrounding assisted suicide.
Additionally, it's significant to note the role of historical context in the Court's analysis. By examining whether the right to physician-assisted suicide is deeply rooted in American history, the Court articulated a traditional view of state interests and the value of life. Professors may ask students to consider how this case sets a precedent for future rulings on similar issues, highlighting the tension between individual rights and state regulatory powers.
Glucksberg's Gavel: No Right to Die
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health | Cruzan involved the right to refuse medical treatment, which the Court recognized as part of personal autonomy, unlike assisted suicide, which the Court did not recognize as a fundamental right. |
| Roe v. Wade | Roe involved the right to terminate a pregnancy, which the Court found to be a fundamental right, contrasting with Glucksberg's rejection of assisted suicide as a fundamental right. |
The state has a legitimate interest in preserving life and preventing potential abuses in the practice of assisted death.
Denying the right to physician-assisted suicide infringes on personal autonomy and an individual's right to make decisions about their own body and life choices.
This case is likely to appear on exams in discussions of the limits of personal autonomy under the Fourteenth Amendment and the criteria for identifying fundamental rights. Expect questions that require analysis of state interests versus individual rights.