Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) - Revision history

Admin: Admin moved page Washington v. Glucksberg to Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

2019-10-21T21:09:23Z

Admin moved page Washington v. Glucksberg to Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Admin at 21:41, 18 June 2019

2019-06-18T21:41:32Z

Morgannoel18 at 08:22, 28 October 2017

2017-10-28T08:22:09Z

Admin at 20:18, 28 September 2017

2017-09-28T20:18:42Z

Nicole: Created page with "''Washington v. Glucksberg'' (1997) saw the Supreme Court take up the emotional issue of assisted suicide. Chief Justice William Rehnquist unanimously upheld a state of Washin..."

2017-02-06T18:59:56Z

Created page with "''Washington v. Glucksberg'' (1997) saw the Supreme Court take up the emotional issue of assisted suicide. Chief Justice William Rehnquist unanimously upheld a state of Washin..."

New page

''Washington v. Glucksberg'' (1997) saw the Supreme Court take up the emotional issue of assisted suicide. Chief Justice William Rehnquist unanimously upheld a state of Washington law that banned causing or aiding a suicide. He showed through history, legal traditions, and practices that one does not have a fundamental liberty to commit suicide with another’s assistance. Therefore the law did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but instead was rationally related to legitimate government interests. In the companion case, Vacco v. Quill, Rehnquist, again speaking for a unanimous Court, upheld a New York law that made it a crime to aid another to commit or attempt suicide, although the law recognized the right of patients to refuse lifesaving medical treatment. Taken together, these two decisions suggest that while the right of privacy guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States does not include a right to assisted suicide, states, under their own constitutions, might create such a right.

==== Robert W. Langran ====

SEE ALSO: [[Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:41, 18 June 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	''Washington v. Glucksberg'' (1997) saw the Supreme Court take up the emotional issue of assisted suicide. Chief Justice William Rehnquist unanimously upheld a state of Washington law that banned causing or aiding a suicide. He showed through history, legal traditions, and practices that one does not have a fundamental liberty to commit suicide with another’s assistance. Therefore the law did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but instead was rationally related to legitimate government interests. In the companion case, Vacco v. Quill, Rehnquist, again speaking for a unanimous Court, upheld a New York law that made it a crime to aid another to commit or attempt suicide, although the law recognized the right of patients to refuse lifesaving medical treatment. Taken together, these two decisions suggest that while the right of privacy guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States does not include a right to assisted suicide, states, under their own constitutions, might create such a right.	+	''Washington v. Glucksberg'' (1997) saw the [[Supreme Court of the United States\|Supreme Court]] take up the emotional issue of assisted suicide. Chief Justice [[Rehnquist, William\|William Rehnquist]] unanimously upheld a state of Washington law that banned causing or aiding a suicide. He showed through history, legal traditions, and practices that one does not have a fundamental liberty to commit suicide with another’s assistance. Therefore the law did not violate the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], but instead was rationally related to legitimate government interests. In the companion case, ''Vacco v. Quill'', Rehnquist, again speaking for a unanimous Court, upheld a New York law that made it a crime to aid another to commit or attempt suicide, although the law recognized the right of patients to refuse lifesaving medical treatment. Taken together, these two decisions suggest that while the right of privacy guaranteed by the [[U.S. Constitution\|Constitution]] of the United States does not include a right to assisted suicide, states, under their own constitutions, might create such a right.

	==== Robert W. Langran ====		==== Robert W. Langran ====

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:18, 28 September 2017
Line 4:		Line 4:

	SEE ALSO: [[Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health]]		SEE ALSO: [[Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health]]
		+
		+	[[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:09, 21 October 2019
(No difference)

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ==== Robert W. Langran ====
 SEE ALSO: [[Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health]]
 [[Category:Supreme Court Cases]]