Washington v. Glucksberg was tragically wrong

Michigan Law Review

Volumn 106, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 1501-1516

  Chemerinsky, Erwin ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASSISTED SUICIDE; CIVIL RIGHTS; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; PALLIATIVE THERAPY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PRIVACY; REVIEW; RIGHT TO DIE; SUICIDE; TERMINAL CARE; TERMINALLY ILL PATIENT; UNITED STATES;

CIVIL RIGHTS; HUMANS; PALLIATIVE CARE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PRIVACY; RIGHT TO DIE; SUICIDE; SUICIDE, ASSISTED; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; TERMINAL CARE; TERMINALLY ILL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 46449136592     PISSN: 00262234     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 26.1, 279 (1990), the Court "assumed," and five Justices expressly found, that there is a right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause. See infra notes 28-30 and accompanying text.
2. Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev'd sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 52.1 U.S. 702 (1997).
3. Vacco v. Quill, 80 F.3d 716 (2d Cir. 1996), rev'd, 521 U.S. 793 (1997).
4. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702;
5. Quill, 521 U.S. 793.
6. My focus, like that of the Supreme Court in Glucksberg and Quill, is on the right to physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. In Part II, I consider whether this inevitably would mean a right to physician-assisted suicide in other contexts.
7. See, e.g., Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 91-92 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (disputing any constitutional protection for the right of parents to control the upbringing of their children); Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 293 (Scalia, J., concurring) (disputing constitutional protection for the right to refuse medical treatment).
8. E.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1.967) (speaking of a fundamental right to marriage).
9. See, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59 (1982) ("[A] natural parent's desire for and right to the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children is an interest far more precious than any property right." (internal, quotation marks omitted)); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972) ("The rights to conceive and to raise one's children have been deemed 'essential,' 'basic civil rights of man,' and '[r]ights far more precious ... than property rights.' " (alteration in original) (citations omitted)).
10. See, e.g., Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (declaring it unconstitutional for a zoning ordinance to keep a grandmother from living with her two grandsons who were first cousins).
11. E.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
12. See, e.g., Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (invalidating a state law that mandated involuntary sterilization of those convicted three times of crimes involving moral turpitude).
13. E.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
14. E.g., Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
15. Moreover, conservative Justices seem quite willing to depart from the original meaning of a constitutional provision when it conflicts with their ideology. For example, conservative Justices interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as requiring colorblindness by the government. See, e.g., Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 127 S. Ct. 2738 (2007). But it is clear that the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, especially based on the actions of the Congress that proposed it, was to allow race-conscious government actions, especially to benefit minorities. See Stephen A. Siegel, The Federal Government's Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws: An Originalist Inquiry, 92 NW. U. L. REV. 477, 570-87 (1998) (describing the actions of the Congress that proposed the Fourteenth Amendment).
16. See, e.g., ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION (1987);
17. Paul Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding, 60 B.U. L. REV. 204 (1980).
18. For a superb defense of the right to privacy as a fundamental right, see Jed Rubenfeld, The Right of Privacy, 102 HARV. L. REV. 737 (1989).
19. Washington, v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-21 (1997) (quoting Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977) (plurality opinion)).
20. Id. at 728.
21. 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
22. Erwin Chemerinsky, Rationalizing the Abortion Debate: Legal Rhetoric and the Abortion Controversy, 31 BUFF. L. REV. 107, 109 (1982).
23. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720-21.
24. (quoting Moore, 431 U.S. at 503).
25. O.W. Holmes, The Path of the Law, 10 HARV. L. REV. 457, 469 (1897).
26. 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
27. See, e.g., Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 792 (Breyer, J., concurring).
28. It is interesting to speculate as to why not. In part, it may be a reflection of the composition of the Court. I believe, though I cannot prove, that William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, William. Douglas, or even Harry Blackmun would have argued differently. The Court at the time of Glucksberg did not have (and does not have today) a liberal in the mold of these earlier Justices. Moreover, the failure of any Justice to urge such a right is a reflection of the influence of the conservative attack on unenumerated rights. The conservatives' relentless drumbeat against privacy rights has had an effect, even though it is inconsistent with numerous precedents and is based on a thoroughly criticized approach to constitutional interpretation.
29. Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790, 839 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev'd sub nom. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (citation omitted).
30. 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
31. Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 279.
32. Id. at 287 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (citation omitted).
33. Id. at 302 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
34. Id. at 344 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
35. Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 804-05 (1997).
36. See supra note 1.8 and accompanying text.
37. Quill, 521 U.S. 793. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "New York's statutes outlawing assisting suicide affect and address matters of profound significance to all New Yorkers alike. They neither infringe fundamental rights nor involve suspect classifications. These laws are therefore entitled to a 'strong presumption of validity.' " Id. at 799-800 (citations omitted).
38. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 728 n.20 (1997).
39. Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 282.
40. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 728 (quoting Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 282).
41. Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790, 820 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev'd sub nom. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702.
42. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 730-31.
43. RICHARD A. POSNER, AGING AND OLD AGE 244 (1995).
44. Compassion in Dying, 79 F.3d at 824 n.98
45. (citing POSNER, supra note 40, at 243-53).
46. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 731.
47. Id. at 731-32.
48. See supra notes 28-31 and accompanying text.
49. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 732.
50. Yale Kamisar, Against Assisted Suicide - Even a Very Limited Form, 72 U. DET. MERCY L. REV. 735 (1.995);
51. Yale Kamisar, The "Right to Die": On Drawing (and Erasing) Lines, 35 DUQ. L. REV. 481 (1996).
52. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 734.
53. Kurt Darr, Physician-Assisted Suicide: Legal and Ethical Considerations, 40 J. HEALTH L. 29, 39 (2007) (alterations in original)
54. (quoting the Death with Dignity Act § 2.0.1, OR. REV. STAT. § 127.805 (2005)).
55. OFFICE OF DISEASE PREVENTION & EPIDEMIOLOGY, OR. DEP'T OF HUMAN SERVS., EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT ON OREGON'S DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT 7-8 (2006), available at http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year8.pdf.
56. Id. at 5.
57. Darr, supra note 48, at 43 (footnote omitted).
58. Lindsay N. McAneeley, Comment, Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Laboratory to the State of Hawai'i, 29 U. HAW. L. REV. 269, 292 (2006) (footnote omitted).
59. In Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), the Court held that the U.S. Department of Justice is not authorized under the Controlled Substances Act to block implementation of the Death with Dignity Act.
60. Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790, 810 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc), rev'd sub nom. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (footnotes omitted).