The Case Of Washington Vs. Glucksberg

1555 Words4 Pages

The 14th amendment gives people the right to life and liberty, therefore the Supreme Court made the wrong decision in Washington vs Glucksberg when they supported the states ban. This case has left many terminally ill patients suffering without the freedom to end their lives. Washington vs Glucksberg was a case where Dr Harold Glucksberg who was a physician brought in four patients, three of which were terminally ill. Dr Glucksberg argued Washington state 's ban on assisted suicide. This case is quite significant it stated that physician assisted suicide was a violation of the Due process law of the 14 th amendment. The due process clause states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens …show more content…

Glucksberg claimed that Washington 's ban was unlawful. Glucksberg felt while working with terminally ill patients that he would be up for assisting them end their lives rather than allowing patients to go through the excruciating terminal pain should be able to end their lives rather than living a life full of pain. The District Court agreed with Glucksberg, however the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not agree. At that point, in the wake of rehearing the case en banc, the Ninth Circuit turned around the prior board and certified the District Court 's case. The case was contended before the United States Supreme Court on January 8, 1997. The inquiry exhibited was whether the assurance of the Due Process Clause incorporated a privilege to submit suicide, and in this way confer suicide with a person 's help. The Supreme Court argued that the ban was discerning in that the conservation of human life and the assurance of the rationally sick and impaired . It likewise kept those moved to end their lives in view of money related or mental confusions. However The Supreme Court felt doctor supported suicide a naturally ensured right. The district court said that it …show more content…

In all cases in the United States we start by looking at our Nation 's history, lawful customs, and practices. In pretty much every western democracy it is a wrongdoing to support a suicide. The States ' aided suicide bans are not advancements. Rather, they are longstanding outflows of the States ' dedication to the insurance and protection of all human life. Besides, the dominant part of States in this nation have laws forcing criminal punishments on one who aids an alternate to carry out suicide. “Though deeply rooted, the State 's ' assisted-suicide bans have in recent years been reexamined and, generally, reaffirmed. Because of advances in medicine and technology, Americans today are increasingly likely to die in institutions, from chronic illnesses(http://law2.umkc.edu).” So why would you let these people live out a inevitable death in a hospital bed suffering when we have the technology and resources to take them out of their pain and suffering. It is morally incorrect and wrong to force someone to live out a life they don 't want to live. However in recent years the States have took the initiative to solve this problem. Recently five states have voted to legalize physician assisted suicide in their state them including Denver, New Mexico, Montana, Oregon and Washington. A recent case that involved physician assisted suicide was Baxter vs Montana where someone with Leukemia

Open Document