Academic

Faculty Blogs: Physician Assisted Suicide

The court will recognize an asserted right as being of fundamental importance only if that right is deeply rooted in tradition.  There is no history of a right to physician assisted suicide; to the contrary, suicide is a criminal offense.  Therefore, the ban on physician assisted suicide only has to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.  The interest is: 1. state interest in preserving life; 2. public health interest in preventing suicide; 3. preserving the ethics and integrity of the medical profession; 4. protecting vulnerable groups (i.e., disabled, elderly); 5. preventing euthanasia.  

In Vacco v. Quill, the NY ban on assisted suicide was upheld and the court rejected an argument based on equal protection.  The court distinguished assisted suicide from the right to refuse unwanted medical treatment, including withdrawing life support.  In assisted suicide, death results from taking medication and the intent is death.  In withdrawing life support, death results from the underlying disease and the intent is to honor the wishes and autonomy of the patient and to cease futile care. Justice O'Connor's concurrence implied that there may be a fundamental right to palliative care and confirmed that physicians can medicate for comfort even if it is likely that death will result, so long as the intent is to sedate or relieve suffering.  She stated that although the ban was not unconstitutional on its face, it may be troublesome as applied and that the court might revisit the issue again.

Oregon's Death with Dignity Act survived a constitutional challenge. The legitimate state interest is in protecting the autonomy of competent terminally ill patients and the act was rationally related to that purpose. A description of the Act and the safeguards it includes is found on page 609 of your text in note 2. 

Full post as published by University of Louisville Law Faculty on April 18, 2009 (boomark / email).