Washington v. Glucksberg

Definition

Washington v. Glucksberg is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1997 that addressed the constitutionality of physician-assisted suicide, ruling that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case is significant as it illustrates how judicial philosophies influence the interpretation of individual rights, particularly in sensitive moral issues.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 decision that Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide did not violate the Constitution.
2. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting vulnerable populations, suggesting that allowing assisted suicide could lead to pressure on those with disabilities or chronic illnesses.
3. This case built upon earlier rulings regarding individual liberties but ultimately concluded that there was no historically rooted right to assisted suicide.
4. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, which underscored the state's interest in preserving human life and maintaining ethical standards in medicine.
5. Washington v. Glucksberg set a precedent for future cases related to end-of-life decisions and medical ethics, influencing discussions about autonomy and state regulation.

Review Questions

• How did the ruling in Washington v. Glucksberg reflect different judicial philosophies regarding individual rights?
  • The ruling in Washington v. Glucksberg reflected a judicial philosophy of restraint, as the Supreme Court refrained from recognizing a new constitutional right to assisted suicide. The justices emphasized the historical context of rights and focused on state interests rather than expanding individual liberties in this sensitive area. By grounding their decision in established legal principles rather than personal autonomy, they demonstrated a cautious approach to judicial interpretation.
• In what ways did Washington v. Glucksberg address concerns about vulnerable populations in the context of physician-assisted suicide?
  • Washington v. Glucksberg highlighted significant concerns regarding how allowing physician-assisted suicide could impact vulnerable populations, such as individuals with disabilities or terminal illnesses. The Court noted that these groups might face coercion or pressure to choose assisted suicide due to societal or familial expectations. This concern was pivotal in reinforcing the state's interest in preserving life and maintaining ethical medical practices, thereby shaping future legal discussions on this issue.
• Evaluate how Washington v. Glucksberg has influenced contemporary debates surrounding end-of-life issues and medical ethics.
  • Washington v. Glucksberg has significantly influenced contemporary debates surrounding end-of-life issues by establishing a legal framework that prioritizes state interests over individual autonomy in matters like physician-assisted suicide. This case has set a precedent that shapes ongoing discussions about patient rights, medical ethics, and legislative efforts aimed at legalizing assisted dying. As society grapples with evolving views on autonomy and quality of life, the decision serves as a critical reference point for both advocates and opponents of assisted suicide legislation, illustrating the ongoing tension between individual freedoms and regulatory authority.

Related terms

Fourteenth Amendment: An amendment to the U.S. Constitution that, among other things, guarantees due process and equal protection under the law.

Substantive Due Process: A constitutional doctrine that protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, requiring a strong justification for any restrictions.

Judicial Restraint: A judicial philosophy where judges limit their own power by avoiding making sweeping decisions or striking down laws unless they clearly violate the Constitution.