Brynne DeRosier
Washington v. Glucksberg
The Supreme Court case between the state of Washington and Dr. Harold Glucksberg,
considering the decision to prohibit physician-assisted suicide, took place in 1997. Dr. Harold
Glucksberg and four other physicians decided to challenge the state of Washington 's ban on
physician-assisted suicide. The state of Washington had labeled it a crime to promote suicide
attempts by those who "knowingly cause or aid another person to attempt suicide."
Glucksberg claimed that Washington 's ban was unconstitutional. Following a District Court
ruling in favor of Glucksberg and other petitioners, the Ninth Circuit confirmed and the
Supreme Court granted the state of Washington certiorari.
The Supreme Court Case of
…show more content…
Washington chose to enforce the ban as it is
rationally related to a state interest, therefore related to the exercise of its police powers.
In my opinion, Washington 's ban on physician assisted-suicide did not violate the
Fourteenth Amendment 's Due Process Clause. Analyzing the guarantees of the Due Process
Clause, the Court focused on two main aspects: the protection of our nation 's objective
fundamental, historically rooted, rights and liberties; and the cautious definition of what
constitutes a due process liberty interest. The Court held 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 our national traditions and practices. Moreover,
employing a rationality test, the Court held that Washington 's ban was rationally related to the
state 's legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, shielding disabled and terminally ill
people from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above