Discussion Topic: Assisted Suicide

Doctors are legally permitted to shorten a patients life by withholding medical treatment. Four statesMontana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washingtonalso allow doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication for use by a terminal patient who is suffering intolerably.

You Be the Judge: Washington v.Glucksberg

Actions

, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).

Facts: The plaintiffs comprise a coalition of three terminally ill patients, five physicians who treat terminally ill patients, and Compassion in Dying, an organization that provides support to mentally competent, terminally ill adults considering suicide. Jane Roe (she and the other patients used pseudonyms) is a 69-year-old retired pediatrician who has suffered for six years from metastatic cancer. Although she underwent chemotherapy and radiation, she is now in the terminal phase of her disease. She has been almost completely bedridden for a year and is in severe pain despite the use of pain medication. She also suffers from swollen legs, bedsores, poor appetite, nausea, and vomiting, impaired vision, incontinence of the bowel, and general weakness.

John Doe is a 44-year-old artist dying of AIDS. Since his diagnosis three years ago, he has experienced two bouts of pneumonia, chronic, severe skin and sinus infections, grand mal seizures, and extreme fatigue. He has already lost 70 percent of his vision to a degenerative disease that will end in blindness and rob him of his ability to paint.

James Poe is a 69-year-old retired sales representative who suffers from emphysema. He is connected to an oxygen tank at all times and takes morphine regularly to calm the panic reaction associated with his constant feeling of suffocating. Poe also suffers from heart failure related to his pulmonary disease, which obstructs the flow of blood to his extremities and causes severe leg pain. He is in the terminal phase of his illness. [This medical information about the patients is from the appeals court decision. It was omitted from the Supreme Court opinion, but is included here to help students understand the issues better.]

All three patients are mentally competent and wish to commit suicide by taking physician-prescribed drugs.

They are prevented from doing so by a statute in the state of Washington that makes it a felony to help another person attempt suicide.

You Be the Judge: Does a state have the right to punish those who assist the terminally ill to commit suicide?

Holding: The trial court held the statute was unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the court of appeals overturned the trial court. The full appeals court agreed to rehear the case en banc. By a vote of 8 3, the en banc appeals court agreed with the trial court that the statute was unconstitutional. The opinion stated that preservation of life is an important state interest but, when patients are no longer able to pursue liberty or happiness and do not wish to pursue life, the state's interest in forcing them to remain alive is less compelling. However, the Supreme Court overruled the appeals court, holding that the right to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest. Further, the states assisted suicide ban is reasonably related to the promotion and protection of a number of the states important and legitimate interests.

For Chapter 44, discuss and answer the questions listed below related to assisted suicide.

What is the difference between this case and the Nancy Cruzan

Actions

case or the Brenda Young

Actions

case?

1. Why does the state care if someone wants to commit suicide?
2. Why did the patients, in this case, want a physician to help them commit suicide?
3. If the doctor and patient are willing, then why shouldn't the patient be allowed to seek help in killing herself?
4. Why should patients be allowed to ask for help from doctors to kill themselves?
5. What did the courts decide?