Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    WASHINGTON vs. GLUCKSBERG

    Uploaded by

    Laurena Reblando
    Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was challenged in court by physicians and terminally ill patients who argued it violated due process rights. The Supreme Court ruled the ban was constitutional, finding no fundamental right to assisted suicide based on historical traditions. It also found the ban was rationally related to legitimate state interests in preserving life, protecting vulnerable groups from abuse or mistakes, and upholding medical ethics. The Court concluded the ban did not violate due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    WASHINGTON vs. GLUCKSBERG

    Uploaded by

    Laurena Reblando
    22 views1 page
    Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was challenged in court by physicians and terminally ill patients who argued it violated due process rights. The Supreme Court ruled the ban was constitutional, finding no fundamental right to assisted suicide based on historical traditions. It also found the ban was rationally related to legitimate state interests in preserving life, protecting vulnerable groups from abuse or mistakes, and upholding medical ethics. The Court concluded the ban did not violate due process.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was challenged in court by physicians and terminally ill patients who argued it violated due process rights. The Supreme Court ruled the ban was constitutional, finding no fundamental right to assisted suicide based on historical traditions. It also found the ban was rationally related to legitimate state interests in preserving life, protecting vulnerable groups from abuse or mistakes, and upholding medical ethics. The Court concluded the ban did not violate due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    22 views1 page

    WASHINGTON vs. GLUCKSBERG

    Uploaded by

    Laurena Reblando
    Washington's ban on physician-assisted suicide was challenged in court by physicians and terminally ill patients who argued it violated due process rights. The Supreme Court ruled the ban was constitutional, finding no fundamental right to assisted suicide based on historical traditions. It also found the ban was rationally related to legitimate state interests in preserving life, protecting vulnerable groups from abuse or mistakes, and upholding medical ethics. The Court concluded the ban did not violate due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    WASHINGTON vs.

    GLUCKSBERG
    521 U.S. 702 (1997)

    FACTS:

    Dr. Glucksberg along with four other physicians, three terminally ill patients, and a
    nonprofit organization that counsels individuals contemplating physician assisted-suicide
    brought this suit challenging the State of Washington's ban on physician assisted-
    suicide. The State of Washington has historically criminalized the promotion of suicide
    attempts by those who "knowingly cause or aid another person to attempt suicide." 

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Washington’s prohibition against “causing” or “aiding” a suicide, violates


    the Due Process Clause.

    RULING:

    The court ruled in the negative.

    The Court said that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest
    protected by the Due Process Clause /since its practice has been, and continues to be,
    offensive to their national traditions and practices. And to hold for respondents, the Court
    would have to reverse centuries of legal doctrine and practice, and strike down the
    considered policy choice of almost every State.

    The Court also ruled that the assisted-suicide ban was rationally related to a legitimate
    government interest because Washington sought to preserve human life, those suffering
    from un- treated pain or from depression or other mental disorders and also uphold the
    integrity and ethics of the medical profession.

    Furthermore, Washington's statute sought to protect vulnerable groups, such as the poor,
    elderly, and disabled from abuse, neglect, and mistakes. And also effectively prevented a
    broader license to voluntary or involuntary euthanasia.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy