-
Cruzan vs Director, Missouri Department of Health
In 1983, the parents of a woman who was in a car accident wanted to stop the life support, but the hospital refused unless they got the courts approval. The court ruled that Missouri's law to protect the life of the people was constitutional since there was no way to prove that the acts of the family were in the best interest of the patient and the taking of a lif is irreversible. -
Washington vs Glucksberg
Washington enforced a ban on assisted-suicide and physicians and patients as well as a nonprofit organization, challenged this ban. Collectively, the court decided that according to the Due Process Clause we are entitled to a liberty interest. Assisted suicide was not something that the court deemed to be a liberty interest, so Washington's ban was related to the state's engagement in preserving medical principles and people lives. -
Vacco vs Quill
New York imposed a ban on physician-assisted suicide; some physicians and patients disputed this claiming it was unconstitutional. It prevented doctors from assisting in the suicide of their patients, no matter their condition. Unanimously, the Supreme Court decided that New York was justified because physicians should be trying to save their patients, not assist them in trying to end their lives, no matter the situation because that involves criminal elements. -
Gonzales vs Orgeon
In 1994, the Death with Dignity Act was begun in Oregon which allows lethal doses of prescriptions to be prescribed by physicians. However, it conflicted with the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) and the Attorney General threatened to take the license of any physician that participates. Since the CSA was mainly made to prevent illegal drug dealing (not regulate state medical practice), the court decided it was not something that he could use to regulate the medical practice under the state law.