Washington v. Glucksberg

1997-06-26

Headline: Court upholds Washington ban on assisting suicide, blocking doctors from prescribing lethal drugs and leaving end-of-life policy decisions to states, voters, and medical practice.

Holding: The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a fundamental right to assisted suicide and that Washington’s ban on aiding or causing another’s suicide is constitutional as reasonably related to legitimate state interests.

Real World Impact:

Prevents doctors from legally assisting terminally ill patients to end their lives.
Leaves decisions on assisted suicide to state laws, voters, and medical guidelines.
Signals states may experiment with rules while courts may hear narrow cases about specific patients.

Topics: assisted suicide, end-of-life care, medical ethics, state law and policy

Summary

Background

The State of Washington enacted a law making it a crime to cause or aid another person to attempt suicide while allowing withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Four doctors who treat terminally ill patients and a nonprofit sued after some terminal patients sought help ending their lives; lower courts split and the Ninth Circuit en banc recognized a constitutional "right to die," prompting Supreme Court review.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects a right to commit suicide with another's assistance. After surveying history and legal tradition, it found a longstanding, near‑universal prohibition on assisting suicide, distinguished the right to refuse medical treatment, and concluded assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty. Applying a deferential review, the Court held Washington's ban reasonably furthers legitimate state interests: preserving life, preventing suicide, protecting the vulnerable, and maintaining medical ethics while avoiding a slippery slope to euthanasia.

Real world impact

The Court upheld Washington's ban, which means doctors in that State may not legally prescribe lethal drugs to help patients die under this statute. The decision leaves policy choices to state legislatures, voters, and medical communities, and allows continued public debate and state-level experimentation. The ruling does not foreclose future, narrower legal challenges aimed at specific patients or tightly crafted regulatory schemes.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separate opinions. Justice O'Connor concurred in the judgments, noting available palliative care and deferring broader questions. Justices Souter, Stevens, Breyer, and Ginsburg also concurred in the judgments, emphasizing caution, possible as-applied challenges, and the role of legislatures and factfinding.