¶ … 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/