What are some recent right-to-die cases decided by the US Supreme Court?

Answer 1

Background

The right to die first became a political issue in the 1990s, when pathologist Dr. Jack Kevorkian (infamously nicknamed Dr. Death), advocated for physician assisted suicide, and facilitated death for approximately 130 people. Kevorkian was prosecuted numerous times, but never convicted until he allowed the television news show 60 Minutes to air a videotape of him administering a lethal injection to Thomas Youk, a man in the final stages of ALS (also called Lou Gehrig's disease). Kevorkian publicly challenged prosecutors to charge him for the act, leading to the former doctor's conviction for second degree homicide in 1999. Kevorkian was paroled in 2007 on the condition that he not assist in further suicides, but has remained an active advocate of the movement.

Although medically assisted suicide was controversial, Oregon was the first to pass a state law by ballot, the 1994 Death with Dignity Act, authorizing physicians to assist in hastening the death of terminally ill patients who met the following criteria:

1. Must be 18 years old or older
2. Must be a legal resident of Oregon
3. Must be capable of making and communicating health care decisions him- or herself
4. Must be diagnosed with a terminal illness expected to result in death within six months
5. Must make the request in the presence of two witness, one of whom may not be a doctor
6. Must make a second request after 15 days, again in the presence of two witness, under the same conditions listed above.

These rules were created to ensure patients' wishes were met without coercion or abuse, and that they were allowed time to reconsider the decision before death was carried out. As of 2006, 292 individuals had chosen to die with assistance.

The Oregon state legislature attempted to repeal the law in 1997, but the measure failed.

In 1997, Oregon was the only state allowing physician-assisted suicide, but patients and advocates in other states attempted to have the practice legalized. When their efforts failed in the state judicial system, several filed suit in federal district court, and two were eventually granted certiorari by the US Supreme Court.

Washington et al. v Glucksburg, 521 US 702 (1997)

Four physicians, three terminally ill patients, and a non-profit organization, asserted a liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment Due Process clause and sued to overrule a state prohibition on the practice in federal court. In support of their argument, they cited Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992), which held medical decisions were a private matter between physician and patient; and Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of Health, 497 US 261 (1990), which held that competent people were permitted to refuse medical treatment under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.

A District Court agreed with the petitioners, declaring a ban on assisted suicide was unconstitutional. This decision was affirmed by US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where an 11-judge judicial panel considered the case en banc. the State of Washington appealed this decision to the US Supreme Court.

In a 9-0 unanimous decision, the Court voted to reverse the lower courts and uphold the ban. Although both conservative and liberal justices agreed in judgment, their reasons for doing so differed.

In the Court opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist cited 700 years of law and tradition banning assisted suicide, as well as the 1997 Federal Assisted Suicide Funding Restrictions Act, which prohibited the use of federal funds in support of physician-assisted suicide. The Court held there was no Due Process violation because death was not a fundamental liberty protected by the Constitution.

Concurring in judgment only, Justice Souter expressed concern that legalizing suicide could result in abuse, and asserting that assisted suicide and euthanasia are too closely linked.

The justices agreed that the legislation and regulation of such act properly fell under state's rights.

Vacco v. Quill, 521 US 793 (1997)

A group of New York physicians and terminally ill patients brought suit in federal court, contesting New York's law making assisting in a suicide a criminal activity. The party argued the ban on assisted suicide violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause, asserting that 1) New York accords different treatment to competent terminally ill patients who wish to terminate their lives by self-administration of prescription drugs than to those who wish to hasten death by removing life support; and 2) the unequal treatment is not rationally related to any State interest.

The District Court disagreed, but the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the lower court, agreeing with the citizens' argument. New York appealed the case to the US Supreme Court.

The Court held, in a second 9-0 unanimous ruling, that the New York law did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, citing differences between passively allowing death to occur naturally and deliberately causing death by action.

Again, although concurring in judgment, the conservative and liberal factions' reasoning was consistent with that in Glucksburg.

The Court didn't hear another right-to-die case until 2006.

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 US 243 (2006)

In 2004, US Attorney General John Ashcroft (later replaced by Alberto Gonzales, whose name is on the case) attempted to expand the laws against illegal drug trafficking to include physicians who provided controlled substances to patients for the purpose of terminating life, on the grounds that termination of life did not "serve legitimate medical purposes."

Oregon, whose voters had twice approved the measure, filed suit in federal court, seeking a permanent injunction against the federal government from applying drug trafficking laws to to legislated medical procedures. Ashcroft attempted to invoke the "Chevron deference," a colloquialism for the process where the Court accedes to federal departmental rules.

In a 6-3 vote, the Court held that Ashcroft exceeded authority delegated to Congress to combat illegal drug activity by inappropriately applying those laws to medical practice. Although the most conservative members of the Court disagreed, the majority ruled that the practice of medicine was a State's right issue, not a power granted to the federal government. They granted a permanent injunction against Ashcroft's intended use of the federal law.

In the few years following the 2006 ruling in favor of Oregon, the State of Washington passed a law modeled on Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (November 4, 2008). In the Washington statute, the physician may provide the means, but the patient is required to self-administer the lethal drugs.

The State of Montana attempted to enact a similar law in December 2008, but the law was challenged and a decision is pending from the Montana Supreme Court. Lawmakers expect a ruling sometime in September 2009.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.