Eleanor Finch
The topic of assisted suicide is steeped in politics, public health, and religious arguments. While the U.S. Constitution guarantees many individual rights, including free speech, religion, and due process, the Supreme Court has not ruled that the right to die is a fundamental right under the Constitution. Instead, the Court has left it to individual states to determine the legality of assisted suicide, with a growing number of states enacting laws that protect a patient's right to die.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Is there a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide? | No, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, and that states have the right to prohibit it. |
| Is assisted suicide legal in any US states? | Yes, as of 2025, physician-assisted suicide is legal in twelve US jurisdictions: California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. |
| What are the requirements for assisted suicide? | Requirements vary by state but generally include that the patient is mentally competent, terminally ill, and can provide witnesses for their request. |
| What is the history of assisted suicide laws in the US? | The Supreme Court first addressed assisted suicide in 1997 in the cases of Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, ruling that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide. Since then, a growing number of states have enacted laws permitting assisted suicide, while others have continued to ban the practice. |
Explore related products
$14.49 $19
What You'll Learn
The Supreme Court's ruling
In 1997, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the same day on the right to die: Washington v. Glucksberg, and Vacco v. Quill. The two cases ruled that both a Washington state law and a New York state law banning assisted suicide did not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that there is no Constitutional right to assisted suicide, and that states have the right to prohibit it. This makes it a state issue.
In the companion case of Vacco v. Quill, the Supreme Court ruled that New York's ban on physician-assisted dying was constitutional and did not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Court rejected the argument that a state that prohibited assisted suicide but allowed the termination of medical treatment resulting in death unreasonably discriminated against the terminally ill. The Court found that the distinction between letting a patient die through inaction and making that patient die is important, logical, and rational.
The Supreme Court's opinions in these cases failed to strike down Washington State's and New York's bans on assisted suicide, but the fate of physician-assisted dying is still undetermined. The Supreme Court's rulings have allowed for ongoing debate on the issue at the state level. Since the Supreme Court concluded that the U.S. Constitution does not require a particular outcome, states are free to permit or ban physician-assisted suicide. As of 2025, physician-assisted suicide is legal in twelve US jurisdictions, including Oregon, Washington, and Montana, while it is prohibited by statute in 42 states and by common law in an additional six states and the District of Columbia.
The 10th Amendment: Power and Balance in the Constitution
You may want to see also
State laws and rulings
The topic of assisted suicide in the United States is steeped in politics, public health, and religious arguments. While the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to rule that the right to die is a fundamental right under the Constitution, it has also stopped short of declaring the practice illegal, leaving the decision to individual states.
In 1997, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the same day on the right to die: Washington v. Glucksberg, and Vacco v. Quill. The two cases ruled that both a Washington state law and a New York state law banning assisted suicide did not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses. The decisions were both written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. They overturned federal courts of appeals holdings from Washington and New York. The Court held that the government's interest in protecting life and preventing intentional killing outweighed the patient's interest in the liberty to choose to die.
In Washington v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court ruled that Washington state's ban on physician-assisted suicide did not violate the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court reasoned that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, as its practice has been, and continues to be, offensive to national traditions and practices.
In Vacco v. Quill, the Supreme Court ruled that New York's ban on physician-assisted dying was constitutional and did not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Court rejected a lower appellate court's conclusion that ending or refusing life-sustaining medical treatment was the same as assisted suicide. The Court found that the distinction between letting a patient die through inaction and making that patient die is important, logical, and rational.
In Gonzales v. Oregon (2006), the Court ruled that the United States Attorney General could not enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill.
As of 2025, physician-assisted suicide, or "medical aid in dying", is legal in twelve US jurisdictions: California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. These laws (excluding Montana, where there is no explicit legislation) state that "actions taken in accordance with [the Act] shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide under the law". This distinguishes the legal act of "medical aid in dying" from the act of helping someone die by suicide, which is prohibited by statute in 42 states, and prohibited by common law in an additional six states and the District of Columbia.
Preserving the Union: Amending the Constitution
You may want to see also
The right to die
In the United States, the right to die, or physician-assisted suicide, is not considered a fundamental right or liberty interest protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to assisted suicide is not protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that states have the authority to prohibit it. This has resulted in a variety of laws and regulations regarding the right to die across different states.
While the Supreme Court has not recognised a constitutional right to assisted suicide, it has also stopped short of declaring the practice illegal. This has left the issue to be decided at the state level, with a growing number of states enacting laws that protect a patient's right to die. These laws typically require the patient to be mentally competent, terminally ill, and able to make repeated requests for lethal medication.
Oregon was the first state to pass such legislation in 1997, with the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. This was followed by other states, including Vermont, which passed the Patient Choice and Control at End of Life Act in 2013, and Montana, which expanded its Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 2009 to include physician-assisted suicide. As of 2025, twelve US jurisdictions allow physician-assisted suicide, or "medical aid in dying".
However, it is important to distinguish between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. In the case of euthanasia, another individual takes the patient's life, which is illegal in the United States. In physician-assisted suicide, the patient must self-administer the drugs that end their life, with doctors only providing the lethal doses of medication.
The debate surrounding the right to die is steeped in politics, public health, and religious arguments. While some argue that the right to die is central to an individual's autonomy and bodily integrity, others contend that the government's interest in protecting life and preventing intentional killing outweighs these considerations. The Supreme Court has also recognised the importance of protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession in this context.
Understanding Pakistan's Constitution: The Eighth Amendment
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Physician-assisted suicide laws
In the United States, "assisted suicide" is typically used to describe what proponents refer to as "medical aid in dying" (MAID). In MAID, a terminally ill adult is prescribed and self-administers barbiturates if they feel they are suffering significantly. The term is often used interchangeably with "physician-assisted suicide" (PAS), physician-assisted dying, physician-assisted death, and assisted death. Assisted suicide is similar to, but distinct from, euthanasia (sometimes called "mercy killing"). In cases of euthanasia, another party acts to bring about the person's death, whereas in assisted suicide, a second person provides the means for the individual to voluntarily end their own life, but does not directly cause their death.
The US Supreme Court has declined to rule that the right to die is a fundamental right under the Constitution, instead leaving it as a state issue. In 1997, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the same day on the right to die: Washington v. Glucksberg, and Vacco v. Quill. Both cases ruled that laws banning assisted suicide in Washington and New York did not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses. The Court held that the government's interest in protecting life and preventing intentional killing outweighed the patient's interest in the liberty to choose to die. The Court also rejected the idea that the right to assisted suicide was a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
While the right to assisted suicide is not recognized as a fundamental liberty interest, the Court has determined that state laws similar to California's End of Life Option Act are permitted. In 2001, following the enactment of Oregon's Death With Dignity Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft declared that physician-assisted suicide violated the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. However, in Gonzales v. Oregon (2006), the Court addressed the statutory question of the interaction between the federal Controlled Substances Act and state laws authorizing medicated-assisted suicide, finding that state laws were permitted.
As of 2025, a growing number of states have enacted laws that protect a patient's right to die, including Oregon, Montana, Vermont, Washington, California, Washington D.C., Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maine, and New Mexico. In these states, doctors may provide lethal doses of certain drugs at the request of their patients, but patients ultimately control the act of administering those doses. Most state right-to-die laws require the patient to ask their doctor several times before a doctor can prescribe lethal drugs, and they also require patients to have six or fewer months to live, among other regulations.
Amending Maryland's Constitution: A Step-by-Step Guide
You may want to see also
The Constitution's protection
The U.S. Constitution guarantees many individual rights of citizens and legal residents, including free speech, religion, and due process. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause states that a U.S. citizen cannot lose their life, liberty, or property without notice and the opportunity to be heard.
In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no Constitutional right to assisted suicide, and that states have the right to prohibit it. The Court's decision was based on the argument that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, as it has been and continues to be offensive to national traditions and practices. The Court also noted that the government's interest in protecting life and preventing intentional killing outweighed the patient's interest in the liberty to choose to die.
The Supreme Court has also addressed the interaction of the federal Controlled Substances Act with state laws authorizing assisted suicide. In Gonzales v. Oregon (2006), the Court ruled that the Attorney General could not enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs for assisted suicide in compliance with Oregon state law.
While the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no Constitutional right to assisted suicide, a growing number of states have enacted laws that protect a patient's right to die. These laws allow doctors to provide lethal doses of certain drugs at the request of their patients, with the patient controlling the act of administering those doses. However, it is important to note that the legality of assisted suicide varies across states, with some states explicitly prohibiting the practice.
The right to refuse medical treatment, including life-sustaining treatment such as nutrition and hydration, has been recognized by the Supreme Court as distinct from assisted suicide. The Court has upheld the constitutionality of state laws that permit the refusal of treatment while prohibiting assisted suicide.
Understanding Constitutional Amendment D: What Does it Mean?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, but it has not declared the practice illegal. This makes it a state issue.
Advocates of assisted suicide argue that it is central to an individual's right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity. In the case of Washington v. Glucksberg, Dr. Harold Glucksberg and a group of practicing physicians challenged Washington State's ban on assisted suicide, arguing that it violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, as it has been offensive to national traditions and practices. The Court also found that the government's interest in protecting life and preventing intentional killing outweighs the patient's interest in the liberty to choose to die.
As of 2025, physician-assisted suicide is legal in twelve US jurisdictions: California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.
