Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T15:01:17.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physician-Assisted Suicide as a Constitutional Right

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

John E. Linville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The legal treatment of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is in flux. Reform has been impelled by several forces, including the recent success of novel constitutional arguments in the Ninth and Second Circuit Courts of Appeals. I will review and discuss Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington and Quill v. Vacco, addressing the constitutional arguments, and then briefly considering the attractions and difficulties of these new constitutional theories.

Before 1990, state criminal laws dealing with assisted suicide had reached a remarkably stable consensus: suicide was not illegal, but assisting suicide was a criminal action with no distinction typically made between physicians and others who assisted. The details of the relevant criminal law varied from state to state. Some states had criminal statutes specifically addressing assisted suicide, while others treated the practice under more general homicide statutes. But in no state was it clearly legal for a physician to prescribe a lethal medication at the request of a dying patient. While remarkable legal developments took place during the 1970s and 1980s regarding other aspects of the rights of dying patients (including the right to refuse resuscitation and other life-sustaining treatments and the right to withdraw from life-sustaining treatment including nutrition and hydration), there was relative quiescence regarding the law of PAS.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , Fall 1996 , pp. 198 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).Google Scholar
Quill v. Vacco, 80 F.3d 716 (2d Cir. 1996).Google Scholar
See, for example, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
Quill, T.E., “Death and Dignity: A Case of Individualized Decision Making,” New Engl. J. Med., 324 (1991) 691–94. For a similarly moving case history from a lay perspective, see Solomon, A., “A Death of One's Own,” New Yorker, May 22, 1995, at 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphry, D., Final Exit (New York: Dell Paperbacks, rev. ed., 1992).Google Scholar
Capron, A., “Even in Defeat, Proposition 161 Sounds a Warning,” Hastings Center Report, 23, no. 1 (1993): At 32.Google Scholar
Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington, 850 F. Supp. 1454 (WD. Wash. 1994).Google Scholar
Oregon Death with Dignity Art, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 127.000 et seq. (1995).Google Scholar
Compassion in Dying, 79 F.3d 790.Google Scholar
Quill, 80 F.3d at 716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
79 F.3d 790; and Quill, 80 F.3d 716.Google Scholar
People v. Kevorkian, 527 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 1994).Google Scholar
Washington v. Glucksberg, 65 U.S.L.W. 3254–55 (U.S. Oct. 2, 1996) (No. 96–110); and Quill v. Vacco, 65 U.S.L.W. 3254 (U.S. Oct. 1, 1996) (No. 95–1858).Google Scholar
Compassion in Dying, 850 F. Supp. 1454.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); and Cruzan, 497 U.S. 261.Google Scholar
850 F. Supp. at 1459–62.Google Scholar
Compassion in Dying, 49 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 1995).Google Scholar
Compassion in Dying, 79 F.3d 790.Google Scholar
Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington, 85 F.3d 1440 (9th Cir. 1996).Google Scholar
79 F.3d at 833.Google Scholar
Quill v. Koppell, 870 F. Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).Google Scholar
Id. at 83.Google Scholar
Quill, 80 F.3d 716.Google Scholar
Id. at 738–43.Google Scholar
Kevorkian, 527 N.W.2d 714.Google Scholar
Cruzan, 497 U.S. 261.Google Scholar
527 N.W.2d at 733.Google Scholar
Id. at 751.Google Scholar
See Lessenberry, J., “Jury Acquits Kevorkian in Common Law Case,” New York Times, May 15, 1996, at A14.Google Scholar
Mich. Comp. Laws § 752–1027 (1993).Google Scholar
Kevorkian, 527 N.W.2d 714.Google Scholar
Margolick, D., “Jurors Acquit Dr. Kevorkian in Suicide Case,” New York Times, May 3, 1994, at A1.Google Scholar
Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 127.800 et seq. (1995).Google Scholar
Lee v. Oregon, 869 F. Supp. 1498 (D. Or. 1994).Google Scholar
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42. U.S.C. §§ 12101–213 (1990).Google Scholar
Lee v. Oregon, 891 F. Supp. 1429 (D. Or. 1995).Google Scholar
Compassion in Dying, 79 F.3d at 790, 838.Google Scholar
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.Google Scholar
Casey, 505 U.S. 833.Google Scholar
Cruzan, 497 U.S. 261.Google Scholar
Id. at 287 (O'Connor, J., concurring), 279.Google Scholar
Compassion in Dying, 79 F.3d at 838–39.Google Scholar
Id. at 839–59.Google Scholar
Id. at 851–55.Google Scholar
These concerns have been raised as reasons why PAS should not be legalized. See, for example, The New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, When Death Is Sought, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context (New York: New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, 1994).Google Scholar
Quill, 80 F.3d at 727.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 729.Google Scholar
Id. at 730.Google Scholar
Kamisar, Y., “Against Assisted Suicide,” University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 72 (1995): 735–69.Google Scholar
Dworkin, D.R., Life's Dominion (New York: Knopf, 1993): At 217.Google Scholar
80 F.3d at 730.Google Scholar
Casey, 505 U.S. 833.Google Scholar
For example, see Compassion in Dying, 79 F.3d at 851–54, discussing some of these sources.Google Scholar
80 F.3d at 730.Google Scholar
For example, Back, A.L.et al., “Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Washington State: Patient Requests and Physician Responses,” JAMA, 275 (1996): 919–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 293.Google Scholar
For recent studies on public and medical views on PAS, see Bachman, J.G.et al., “Attitudes of Michigan Physicians and the Public Toward Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide and Voluntary Euthanasia,” N. Engl. J. Med., 334 (1996): 303–09; and Lee, M.A.et al., “Legalizing Physician Assisted Suicide—Views of Physicians in Oregon,” N. Engl. J. Med., 334 (1996): 310–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
497 U.S. at 301.Google Scholar
See, for example, Baron, C.H.et al., “A Model State Act to Authorize and Regulate Physician Assisted Suicide,” Harvard Journal on Legislation, 33 (1996): 1–34; Oregon Official Election Voters Guide, 1994 Measure No. 16; Miller, F.G.et al., “Regulating Physician-Assisted Death,” New Engl. J. Med., 331 (1994): 119–23; and Quill, T.E. Cassel, C.K. Meier, D.E., “Care of the Hopelessly Ill: Proposed Clinical Criteria for Physician-Assisted Suicide,” N. Engl. J. Med., 327 (1992): 1380–84. See, for example, Coleman, C.H. Fleischman, A.R., “Guidelines for Physician-Assisted Suicide: Can the Challenge Be Met ?,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 24 (1996): 217–24, for a critique of the various models proposed to regulate assisted suicide.Google Scholar