Washington v. Glucksberg

Brief summary In Washington, regulations that support suicide are questioned as being unconstitutional

Summary of the rule of law Since the right to encourage suicide is not a fundamental right protected by the Proper Procedure provisions of the 14th Amendment, the law limiting this right means that the State has significant benefits and that the law It is protected if it is reasonably related to promotion.

In fact, Glucksberg (plaintiff) sued Washington State (defendant) and claimed that the prohibition of support for causing suicide is a violation of Article 14 of the amendment to the US Constitution. Plaintiffs insisted that there was free benefits protected by the 14th revision, which extends to mentally competent late adults who chose to aid physicians. The district court agreed that the law is unconstitutional and concluded that the excessive burden is exerted on the constitutionally protected benefits. The team of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The 9th Circuit Court tried again the case, canceled the decision of the expert group, and confirmed the district court. The court found that the law is unconstitutional and ultimately applied to adults with disease and capacity and that drug use hopes the physician to bring death quickly Certiorari was approved by the US Supreme Court It is.

It is a question. Because the right to support suicide is not a fundamental right protected by the Proper Procedure provision of the 14 th revision, the law restricting this right is that the State has important interests, It is protected if relevant.

In the case of Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill in 1997, the state has the right to prohibit suicide as the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is no right to promote suicide in the Constitution. Supporters supporting suicide believe that this is the door to discussing this issue at the state level. Gonzalez vs. Oregon was transferred to the US Supreme Court in 2006. The court ruled that the Attorney General of the United States can not enforce federal regulatory substance bills to physicians who have promoted suicide in violation of Oregon's prescription drugs. Terminal symptom

Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 USA 702, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 138 L. 2d 772 (1997), the Supreme Court of the United States reconsidered the constitutionality of Washington State law and was asked to forbid doctors from promoting suicide. The Supreme Court is controversial by supporting the Constitution, depriving mentally competent and end-of-term constitutional rights by accelerating deaths due to drugs prescribed by physicians, self-management of deadly dose, People who are returning this controversy to those who are in discussion are being discussed by residents. , Legislators and judges. In making a ruling, the court warned that at some point in the future the problem will not be reconsidered.

Four lawsuits by the US Supreme Court (Washington v. Glucksberg, Vacco v. Quay, Gonzalez v. Oregon, and Missouri Department of Health Department Director Krussand) have helped euthanasia and the formation of individual rights. Legal environment in discussion. Refuse treatment. In Glucksberg and Vacco, the incident incident was decided in 1997, SupremeCourt decided to oppose the idea that the state has the right to forbid suicide and guarantees the right to die in the Constitution. Recently, in the case of Gonzales in 2006, the court held that opinion that the US attorney general is a prescription medicine can not enforce the "regulated substance law" against anti-drug law, doctors and pharmacists 6-3 I made it. And punish them. To the terminal patient