Vacco v. Quill 1997

• Author: Daniel Brannen, Richard Hanes, Elizabeth Shaw
• Pages: 525-530

Contenidos

• "Right to Die," or "Death With Dignity".
• Dying in the State of New York.
• The Same or Different?.
• A Perplexing Issue.
• Suggestions for further reading.

Page 525

Petitioners: Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General of New York

Respondents: Timothy E. Quill, Samuel C. Klagsbrun, Howard A. Grossman

Petitioners' Claim: That New York's ban on physician-assisted suicide did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Chief Lawyers for Petitioners: Barbara Gott Billet, Daniel Smirlock, Michael S. Popkin

Chief Lawyers for Respondents: Laurence H. Tribe, David J. Burman, Carla A. Kerr, Peter J. Rubin, Kari Anne Smith, Kathryn L. Tucker

Justices for the Court: Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonio Scalia, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas

Justices Dissenting: None

Date of Decision: June 26, 1997

Decision: Ruling in favor of New York state, the Court decided laws banning physician-assisted suicide do not violate the constitutional equal protection guarantees.

Significance: The ruling provided constitutional support to state laws banning physician-assisted suicide. The Court recognized a legal difference between ending life-prolonging treatment to terminally ill patients and assisted suicide.

Page 526

Advances in medical science had greatly extended human life expectancy by the dawn of the twenty-first century. Although generally viewed as a desirable development, prolonging the lives of terminally ill (not expected to recover) patients can lead to great suffering. Desiring a quick and dignified death, terminal patients sometimes turned to others, especially physicians to help end their life. Many individuals sympathized with this need including a number of doctors (physicians) in the medical profession. Physician-assisted suicide, or simply assisted suicide, means that one individual, most often a doctor, helps another to take his own life. Generally, a physician does this by prescribing a lethal (deadly) dose of a drug which the patient may then use to commit suicide. The issue of physician-assisted suicide is hotly debated among the general public and in legislative activities.

"Right to Die," or "Death With Dignity"

The debate reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. In Cruzan the Court recognized the right of a competent (able to make decisions) adult to refuse unwanted medical treatment even if exercising that right would most likely result in death. The Court defined this right as a constitutional liberty protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law [fair legal procedures]." To be ruled a constitutionally protected liberty, an activity must be supported by a long tradition. The Court's decision that refusing medical...