Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Washington et al. v. Harold Glucksberg et al." (CIB, 357-360)
How does the U.S. Supreme Court answer the question: "Is there a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide?
The Supreme Court answers that question by saying no, there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. On the contrary, the government has the responsibility to protect life and to support it, and this overrides any question of liberty regarding the patient's right to choose whether to live or die. In other words, the government in the case of Washington et al. v. Harold Glucksberg et al. states that suicide is a health problem that should be alleviated not facilitated. It shows that the constitution is a document that upholds the value of life and therefore does not sanction the concept of physician-assisted suicide. The Court goes on to rule that in order for states to change this concept and make physician-assisted suicide legal, new legislation would have to be passed. As the law currently stands (at the time of the trial) there is no basis for arguing that doctors can help patients kill themselves. The purpose of a doctor is to save and heal, not to destroy, the Court rules.
The Court's reason for deciding it thus is that in the long tradition of the law "there is consistent and almost universal tradition that has long rejected the asserted right of assisting suicide" (Washington v. Glucksberg, 2015). Thus, to hold that the individual has a hallowed and fundamental or self-evident right to die "would be to reverse centuries of legal doctrine" (Washington v. Glucksberg, 2015). The Court's stance is that no such right has ever been given and that the Supreme Court is not going to set new precedent by allowing such right.
References
Washington v. Glucksberg. (2015). CaseBriefs. Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-sullivan/substantive-due-process-rise-decline-revival/washington-v-glucksberg-7/2/
In an article in the British journal Lancet, the doctor stated that he liked Helen right off the bat, and then issued this statement: The thought of Helen dying so soon was almost too much to bear… on the other hand, I found even worse the thought of disappointing this family. If I backed out, they'd feel about me the way they had about their previous doctor, that I had
Is physician-assisted suicide ethical if the patient requests medical assistance in terminating his or her own life? Introduction In the U.S., the Supreme Court ruled in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) that physician-assisted suicide is not protected by the Constitution. However, in other parts of the world, physician-assisted suicide is accepted socially and legally; and in the U.S., a patient who is terminally ill may engage in assisted-dying procedures, which are legal in
Physician-Assisted Suicide: The Right to Die Abstract More and more patients in and end-of-life phase are expressing a desire for physician-assisted suicide (PAS) as an option that allows them to die with dignity and forego the pain and suffering associated with their disease and deteriorating condition. Yet in most states in the U.S., physician-assisted suicide remains illegal. The policy of this paper would be for lawmakers to be encouraged to pass a
In the article Active and Passive Euthanasia by Rachels, the author identified the conventional doctrine on the morality of euthanasia. This doctrine allows passive euthanasia but does not allow active euthanasia. Basically this is saying that it is alright to let someone die if that is what is eventually going to happen anyway, but it is not alright to do something to help someone die. And this is the
Assisted suicide should be legalized. There is no rational argument against it, only cartoonish arguments based on superstition and feigned morality. In the real world, we all must die, and there is no case, either moral or intellectual, that one can make to argue that we should not have the right to control our final moments. Over the course of this essay, I will illustrate in no uncertain terms that
Assisted Suicide When we think of assisted suicide, most of us immediately think of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the retired pathologist who was sentenced to two terms of imprisonment in 1999 for helping a man suffering from a terminal disease to die (Humphrey 2002). Assisted suicide is a very passionate issue of debate in this country. There are numerous ethical and moral considerations aside from the legal aspects of the practice. The