Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. In re Quinlan In 1975, 21-year-old Karen Ann Quinlan was "Although the Constitution does not explicitly
(PDF 106KB) admitted to the hospital in a coma, and was mention a right of privacy, Supreme Court
70 N.J. 10 later declared by doctors to be in a "persistent decisions have recognized that a right of
Mar. 31, 1976 vegetative state." After five months on a personal privacy exists and that certain areas of
ventilator, her parents requested that the privacy are guaranteed under the Constitution."
ventilator be removed and that Ms. Quinlan be (p. 23)
allowed to die. After doctors refused, her
parents brought the matter to court. "We think that the State's interest contra
weakens and the individual's right to privacy
The New Jersey Superior Court denied her grows as the degree of bodily invasion
parents' request, but the New Jersey Supreme increases and the prognosis dims. Ultimately
Court reversed and ruled that Quinlan's "right to there comes a point at which the individual's
privacy" included her right to be removed from rights overcome the State interest. It is for that
the ventilator. reason that we believe Karen's choice, if she
were competent to make it, would be vindicated
by the law. Her prognosis is extremely poor..."
(p. 24)
2. Cruzan v. Director, Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in an "The United States Constitution does not forbid
Missouri Dept. of automobile accident that left her in a "persistent Missouri to require that evidence of an
Health (PDF 284KB) vegetative state." After being sustained for incompetent's wishes as to the withdrawal of
497 U.S. 261 several weeks by artificial feedings, her parents life-sustaining treatment be proved by clear and
June 25, 1990 attempted to end life-support, but state hospital convincing evidence." (p. 1)
officials refused to do so without court approval.
"A competent person has a liberty interest under
A state trial court authorized the termination of the Due Process Clause in refusing unwanted
feeding, but the Missouri Supreme Court medical treatment... However, the question
reversed. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme whether that constitutional right has been
Court upheld the ruling of the Missouri Supreme violated must be determined by balancing the
Court, finding that the State of Missouri's actions liberty interest against relevant state interests.
to preserve human life were constitutional in the For purposes of this case, it is assumed that a
absence of "clear and convincing evidence" that competent person would have a constitutionally
Cruzan desired treatment to be withdrawn. protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and
nutrition. This does not mean that an
incompetent person should possess the same
right." (p. 2)
3. Washington v. Harold Glucksberg, MD, along with three other "In almost every State -- indeed, in almost every
Glucksberg (PDF doctors, three gravely ill patients, and the western democracy -- it is a crime to assist a
62KB) nonprofit organization Compassion in Dying, suicide. The States' assisted suicide bans are
521 U.S. 702 brought a suit challenging the state of not innovations. Rather, they are longstanding
June 26, 1997 Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide. expressions of the States' commitment to the
protection and preservation of all human life."
The plaintiffs asserted that the Washington ban (p. 2)
was unconstitutional, arguing that the existence
of a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment allows mentally competent, "The decision to commit suicide with the
terminally ill adults to commit physician-assisted assistance of another may be just as personal
suicide. The District Court ruled that the ban and profound as the decision to refuse
was unconstitutional, and the Ninth Circuit unwanted medical treatment, but it has never
affirmed. enjoyed similar legal protection. Indeed, the two
acts are widely and reasonably regarded as
The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, reversed, quite distinct." (p. 10)
finding that the ban on physician-assisted
suicide does not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment. "That many of the rights and liberties protected
by the Due Process Clause sound in personal
autonomy does not warrant the sweeping
conclusion that any and all important, intimate,
and personal decisions are so protected." (p.
10)
4. Vacco v. Quill Timothy Quill, MD, along with two other "New York's statutes outlawing assisting suicide
(PDF 36KB) physicians and three gravely ill patients, affect and address matters of profound
526 U.S. 793 challenged the constitutionality of New York significance to all New Yorkers alike. They
June 26, 1997 state's ban on physician-assisted suicide. The neither infringe fundamental rights nor involve
plaintiffs argued that New York's ban violated suspect classifications." (p. 2)
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, as the law allowed for patients to "We think the distinction between assisting
refuse life-sustaining treatment, but not for them suicide and withdrawing life sustaining
to receive assistance in suicide. treatment, a distinction widely recognized and
endorsed in the medical profession and in our
The District Court ruled in favor of the State of legal traditions, is both important and logical."
New York, and the Second Circuit reversed in (p. 3)
favor of Dr. Quill. The Supreme Court, in a 9-0
ruling, upheld the constitutionality of New York's "Even as the States move to protect and
ban on physician-assisted suicide. promote patients' dignity at the end of life, they
remain opposed to physician assisted suicide."
(p. 4)
5. People v. Fifty-two year old Thomas Youk was suffering "Succinctly put, there is no principled basis for
Kevorkian (PDF from Lou Gehrig's disease when, upon Youk's us to legalize euthanasia." (p. 2)
148KB) request, Jack Kevorkian, MD, administered a
No. 221758 lethal drug to Youk, who died as a result. "In summary, defendant does not, nor could he,
Nov. 20, 2001 ask us to hold that his actions were legally
Dr. Kevorkian filmed Youk's death and the trial justifiable because he simply helped Youk
court jury, who saw the videotapes in court, exercise his right to refuse medical care.
convicted Kevorkian of second-degree murder, Defendant does not, nor could he, ask us to
despite his claims that he had committed a hold that he was lawfully attempting to alleviate
"mercy killing." The Michigan Court of Appeals Youk's pain and suffering by any means other
affirmed the conviction. than causing his death. Defendant does not, nor
could he, ask us to hold that his actions
constituted a legal form of assisted suicide. In a
nutshell, and using his own terminology,
defendant asks us to legalize euthanasia." (p. 9)
6. Bush v. Schiavo Theresa Schiavo had been in a persistent "In this case, the undisputed facts show that the
(PDF 292KB) vegetative state since 1990. The Second District guardianship court authorized Michael to
No. SC04-925
Sep. 23, 2004 Court of Florida allowed for the removal of her proceed with the discontinuance of Theresas
nutrition and hydration tube on Oct. 15, 2003. life support after the issue was fully litigated in a
On Oct. 21, 2003, the Florida Legislature proceeding in which the Schindlers were
enacted chapter 2003-418, and Governor Jeb afforded the opportunity to present evidence on
Bush signed the Act into law, issuing executive all issues... Thus, the Act, as applied in this
order No. 03-201 to stay the continued case, resulted in an executive order that
withholding of nutrition and hydration from effectively reversed a properly rendered final
Theresa. judgment and thereby constituted an
unconstitutional encroachment on the power
Michael Schiavo, Theresa's husband and that has been reserved for the independent
guardian, challenged the Act in circuit court, and judiciary. (p. 15)
the circuit court ruled in his favor, finding the Act
unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court
affirmed. "The Act is unconstitutional on its face because
it delegates legislative power to the Governor."
(p. 18)
7. Gonzales v. In 1994, Oregon passed the Death with Dignity "The CSA [Controlled Substances Act] does not
Oregon (PDF 405KB) Act, the first state law permitting physicians to allow the Attorney General to prohibit doctors
Docket # 04-623 prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances from prescribing regulated drugs for use in
Jan. 17, 2006 to terminally ill patients. U.S. Attorney General physician-assisted suicide under state law
John Ashcroft declared in 2001 that the Act permitting the procedure." (p. 2)
violated the Controlled Substances Act of 1970,
and threatened to revoke the medical licenses "The Attorney General has rulemaking power to
of physicians who engaged in physician- fulfill his duties under the CSA. The specific
assisted suicide. respects in which he is authorized to make
rules, however, instruct us that he is not
Oregon sued the Attorney General in federal authorized to make a rule declaring illegitimate
district court. The district court and the Ninth a medical standard for care and treatment of
Circuit both held that Ashcroft's directive was patients that is specifically authorized under
illegal. state law." (p. 16)
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 opinion, also "In the face of the CSAs silence on the practice
held that the Controlled Substances Act did not of medicine generally and its recognition of state
authorize the Attorney General to ban the use of regulation of the medical profession it is difficult
controlled substances for physician-assisted to defend the Attorney Generals declaration
suicide. that the statute impliedly criminalizes physician-
assisted suicide." (p. 30)
Powered by Translate
2016 ProCon.org, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit | 233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90401 | Tel: 310-451-9596