Physician Assisted Suicide Case Study
VACCO V QUILL
Supreme Court of the United States,
Second Circuit, 1997.
521 U.S. 793.
FACTS The prosecution, Dr. Timothy E. Quill and three terminally ill patients residing in New York State sued the New York State Attorney General’s office (Defendant) on constitutional grounds after the State prohibited Physician-assisted suicides. The respondents made up of Physicians argued that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, in which a capable person can deny medical treatment at any point in their health, and that this is "essentially the same thing" as a Physician-assisted suicide. The District Court acted in favor of the Statute arguing that it was not unconstitutional and stating that New York State …show more content…
has a lawful interest in the health and wellbeing of such people. The Court of Appeals made findings based upon those receiving life support may advance their death by Physician assisted drugs however those that are seriously ill without life-support equipment may not accelerate their death through Physician assisted drugs. The Court of Appeals stated that this unequal treatment in relation to a Physician-assisted suicide is not in New York State’s interests. A writ of Certiorari was accepted by the Supreme Court for review.
ISSUE Did New York State’s ban on Physician-assisted suicide violate the Equal Protections Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing terminally ill patients the right to an accelerated death, but a competent individual not on life support cannot accelerate their death?
DECISION No, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that there was a difference between life saving medical intervention and Physician-assisted suicide, neither violates the Equal Protections Clause because both apply to the public equally.
Because they are both different the Defendant may choose how to treat them separately, which is in favor of one’s Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling in the Plaintiff’s …show more content…
favor.
REASON The Court’s findings were that a Physician respecting a patients’ rights on life support to remove such life saving measures is respecting that patients wishes.
However a Physician assisting with an individual’s wishes to accelerate death is to kill a patient. The Court compared it to someone blinded by the sun and running over an individual resulting in their death would be manslaughter, however purposely running over that individual would warrant murder. In addition the court ruled that a patient on life support wishing to end such measures was protecting their “common law rights” and letting them die compared to that of killing the patient. The Courts conclusory statements stated that the difference between a Physician-assisted suicide and removing life saving measures to those terminally ill is “irrational”. The Court added that anyone can refuse medical treatment but everyone is prohibited from any type of Physician-assisted suicide in an attempt to preserve human life. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreed with the Court’s decision in that there was not “A right to commit suicide” or a “Right to die”. She stated that there was not a constitutional conflict, and that the State had an interest in preserving human life and not allowing competent individuals the right to control their believed “imminent death”. She also added that a patient is able to receive and use pain relieving drugs from one’s doctor to alleviate pain and suffering. Justice John Paul Stevens
joined the Court’s decision in stating that capital punishment is permissible in the state and could be looked at as “impermissibly cruel”. He argued that a competent individual who is not being “coerced or abused into decision” and is not under a cloud of depression has a right to make that decision. Justice Stephen B. Breyer stated that a patient has a "right to die with dignity." However Justice Breyer agreed with the majority in a concurring opinion stating that the law does distinguish the differences between the two practices, and that is was justified. He went on to state that the future may bring additional cases to challenge this law that may force the Court to re-evaluate the terms.
Supreme Court of the United States,
Second Circuit, 1997.
521 U.S. 793.
FACTS The prosecution, Dr. Timothy E. Quill and three terminally ill patients residing in New York State sued the New York State Attorney General’s office (Defendant) on constitutional grounds after the State prohibited Physician-assisted suicides. The respondents made up of Physicians argued that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, in which a capable person can deny medical treatment at any point in their health, and that this is "essentially the same thing" as a Physician-assisted suicide. The District Court acted in favor of the Statute arguing that it was not unconstitutional and stating that New York State …show more content…
has a lawful interest in the health and wellbeing of such people. The Court of Appeals made findings based upon those receiving life support may advance their death by Physician assisted drugs however those that are seriously ill without life-support equipment may not accelerate their death through Physician assisted drugs. The Court of Appeals stated that this unequal treatment in relation to a Physician-assisted suicide is not in New York State’s interests. A writ of Certiorari was accepted by the Supreme Court for review.
ISSUE Did New York State’s ban on Physician-assisted suicide violate the Equal Protections Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing terminally ill patients the right to an accelerated death, but a competent individual not on life support cannot accelerate their death?
DECISION No, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that there was a difference between life saving medical intervention and Physician-assisted suicide, neither violates the Equal Protections Clause because both apply to the public equally.
Because they are both different the Defendant may choose how to treat them separately, which is in favor of one’s Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling in the Plaintiff’s …show more content…
favor.
REASON The Court’s findings were that a Physician respecting a patients’ rights on life support to remove such life saving measures is respecting that patients wishes.
However a Physician assisting with an individual’s wishes to accelerate death is to kill a patient. The Court compared it to someone blinded by the sun and running over an individual resulting in their death would be manslaughter, however purposely running over that individual would warrant murder. In addition the court ruled that a patient on life support wishing to end such measures was protecting their “common law rights” and letting them die compared to that of killing the patient. The Courts conclusory statements stated that the difference between a Physician-assisted suicide and removing life saving measures to those terminally ill is “irrational”. The Court added that anyone can refuse medical treatment but everyone is prohibited from any type of Physician-assisted suicide in an attempt to preserve human life. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor agreed with the Court’s decision in that there was not “A right to commit suicide” or a “Right to die”. She stated that there was not a constitutional conflict, and that the State had an interest in preserving human life and not allowing competent individuals the right to control their believed “imminent death”. She also added that a patient is able to receive and use pain relieving drugs from one’s doctor to alleviate pain and suffering. Justice John Paul Stevens
joined the Court’s decision in stating that capital punishment is permissible in the state and could be looked at as “impermissibly cruel”. He argued that a competent individual who is not being “coerced or abused into decision” and is not under a cloud of depression has a right to make that decision. Justice Stephen B. Breyer stated that a patient has a "right to die with dignity." However Justice Breyer agreed with the majority in a concurring opinion stating that the law does distinguish the differences between the two practices, and that is was justified. He went on to state that the future may bring additional cases to challenge this law that may force the Court to re-evaluate the terms.