AAPL Landmark - Right to Die Flashcards
Is it constitutionally acceptable for a state to require the burden of proof for removal of life-sustaining treatment from an incompetent individual to be clear and convincing?
Yes.
Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of Mental Health (1990)
- USSC held that incompetent persons were not able to exercise their Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to refuse medical treatment. The heightened evidentiary requirements of “clear and convincing” were required as family members may not always act with the best interest of their patients in mind.
Does the ban on physician-assisted suicide of competent terminally ill adults in the State of Washington violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
No.
Washington vs. Glucksberg (1997). The USSC found that banning physician-assisted suicide in Washington did not violate the Due Process Clause. The Court opined that a state has a legitimate interest in preserving life, protecting vulnerable patients, and preserving the medical profession and that a right to die is not a fundamental liberty interest.
Does an individual have a right to physician-assisted suicide under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
No.
Vacco v. Quill (1997). The USSC opined that NY State’s law was constitutional in banning physician-assisted suicide in mentally competent terminally ill patients. They wrote that mentally competent were entitled to refuse life-sustaining treatment, but that “no one is permitted to assist a suicide.”
