Washington v. Glucksberg

Definition

Washington v. Glucksberg is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1997 that dealt with the right to assisted suicide and the scope of substantive due process. The Court ruled that the Constitution does not provide a fundamental right to assisted suicide, emphasizing the importance of state interests in regulating medical practices and protecting vulnerable individuals.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court held that Washington's law prohibiting assisted suicide did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
2. The decision affirmed states' rights to regulate medical practices, including end-of-life decisions, without federal interference.
3. The Court determined that assisted suicide is not a fundamental right historically and traditionally protected under the Constitution.
4. Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, stressed the importance of protecting vulnerable populations from coercion and abuse in end-of-life situations.
5. This case set a precedent for how courts would view similar cases regarding end-of-life choices and individual autonomy in the following years.

Review Questions

• How did Washington v. Glucksberg impact the understanding of substantive due process regarding individual rights?
  • Washington v. Glucksberg clarified that not all personal choices are protected as fundamental rights under substantive due process. The Supreme Court emphasized that a right must be 'deeply rooted' in American history and tradition to be recognized as fundamental. This case established that assisted suicide does not meet this criterion, thereby reinforcing the notion that states can regulate practices affecting vulnerable individuals.
• In what ways does Washington v. Glucksberg highlight the balance between individual autonomy and state interests in end-of-life decisions?
  • The ruling in Washington v. Glucksberg reflects a significant tension between individual autonomy in making personal medical decisions and the state's interest in preserving life and protecting vulnerable populations. The Court recognized that while individuals may seek to make choices about their own deaths, states have legitimate concerns about potential abuse and coercion that may arise from allowing assisted suicide. This balance underscores how legal frameworks address complex moral and ethical dilemmas surrounding end-of-life choices.
• Evaluate the implications of Washington v. Glucksberg for future legal cases concerning assisted suicide and patient rights.
  • Washington v. Glucksberg set a crucial precedent regarding how courts approach cases of assisted suicide and patient rights. Its emphasis on historical context for determining fundamental rights will guide future legal arguments about autonomy in medical choices. As states continue to grapple with legislation around assisted suicide, this case will likely serve as a foundational reference point for evaluating the constitutionality of new laws and ensuring protections for those who are most vulnerable in end-of-life scenarios.

Related terms

Substantive Due Process: A constitutional doctrine that protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, requiring laws to be justified by a compelling state interest.

Assisted Suicide: The practice of providing a person with the means to end their own life, often in the context of terminal illness and severe suffering.

Fundamental Rights: Basic rights that are recognized by the Constitution as being essential to the order and liberty of the society, often requiring a high level of protection against government infringement.