Washington v. Glucksberg
(1997)
By: Makayla Stovall
Case
 Washington State
 Washington state was challenged for its ban on physicianassisted suicide.
 “By upholding the statue and denying mentally
competent, terminally ill patients a constitutional right to
hasten their death through lethal doses of selfadministered, doctor proscribed medication”.
Glucksberg
 Dr. Harold Glucksberg
 Plaintiff
 Washington physician
 Believed it was unconstitutional to deny a patient close to
death the right to end their life with a doctor’s help.
 Uses Due Process Clause as a defense
 claimed that assisted suicide was a liberty interest
protected by the Due Process Clause
Due Process Clause
“Prevents state and local government
officials from depriving persons of life,
liberty or property without legislative
authorization”.
Original Case
January 1994- lawsuit was filed
 January 1997- The lawsuit was taken to the “U.S. District Court for Western
District of Washington”
 Glucksberg argued that “the Washington statue prohibiting assisted
suicide was forged at the common law, tempered by centuries of legal
traditions, and ratified by recent legislative action”
 He argued that physician- attempted suicide is supported by
organizations of health care professionals who care for the sick and dying
regularly.
 Glucksberg biggest argument was that Washington’s ban was
unconstitutional and unfair.
District Court Ruling
 The district court “ruled the statue unconstitutional,
on the ground that it violated the liberty interest
protected by the Due Process Clause of the fifth
and fourteenth amendments to the U.S.
Constitution”
Court of Appeals
 The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
 A panel of judges
 “2-1 decision that reversed the district court’s ruling and reinstated the
Washington statue”
 “The court of appeals emphasized that no right to
assisted suicide has ever been recognized by a
court of final jurisdiction anywhere in the United
States”
Appeals Court cont.
 The Due Process Clause caused problems for the
appeals court.
 Therefore the case was brought into court again
and reheard.
 Case was heard by 11 judges.
 In an 8-3 decision, the appellate court stated “the
Constitution encompasses a due process liberty
interest in controlling the time and manner of one’s
death”
 The original decision to reinstate the Washington statue was then
reversed.
 The District Court’s ruling was reinforced.
Supreme Court
 Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist proved that the
Due Process Clause did not actually protect the
right to commit suicide with another’s assistance.
 It is not a law unless it is deeply rooted in the nation’s legal history
 “Because the Court found the asserted right to
physician-assisted suicide to be contrary to U.S.
history, tradition, and practice, it concluded that it
was not a fundamental right”
Supreme Court cont.
 On June 26, 1997, the Court made its decision.
 unanimous vote of 9 votes for Washington and 0 votes against
 Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority decision
 “the patient is allowed to die by natural causes when life-sustaining
treatment is withdrawn”
 “if the death is intentionally inflicted by the joint effort of doctor and
patient, the cause of death is not the underlying illness”
Concurring Opinions
 Justices
 Sandra Day O’Connor
 Stephen Breyer
 David H. Souter
 A Few of Their Ideas
 O’Connor-the states remain free to establish a right to physician-assisted
suicide or to otherwise strike a proper balance between the interests of
terminally ill patients and the interests of society
 Breyer-“suggested that the right to die should be renamed “the right-todie with dignity”
Dissenting Opinion
 The unanimous decision caused few dissenting
opinions.
 John Paul Stevens
 Dissenting opinion agreed with O’Connor’s in the fact that
“the need for further national debate on the propriety of
physician-assisted suicide”
The Effects
• “In 2008 Washington state voters approved
Washington Death with Dignity Act”
• “est. guidelines for using the services of a physician to terminate one's
life”
• I agree and disagree with the results of the case.
• I believe a person should be able to die if there are
suffering unbearable pain. However, not if family is
just trying to sign off a person’s life.
Works Cited
•
•
•
•
"Washington. "Washington v Glucksberg." Encyclopedia.com. HighBeam Research, 01
Jan. 2005. Web. 23 Nov. 2013
"Washington v. Glucksberg." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Aug. 2013. Web. 23
Nov. 2013
"Google." Google. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
"Washington v. Glucksberg, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997)." Washington v.
Glucksberg, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). Cornell University Law School, 08 Jan.
1997. Web. 23 Nov. 2013.
Pictures
Hyperlinked