Question

Case Study

One of the fears of opponents regarding a “right to die” is that in the future the courts will extend the “right” to other vulnerable populations. Under the Oregon legislation, the patient is prescribed a lethal medication but in the end must take it himself. This then is a form of physi- cian-assisted suicide. Could it be argued that the incapacitated patient who could not take the medication without assistance has an equal right? Would this then expand the right not only to physician-assisted suicide but to physician active euthanasia? In the Vacco v. Quill case, it was argued that if a right to die could be found under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, then a law that allowed a patient who wanted to be disconnected from artificial life support to do so, but barred others who wanted to take lethal drugs to similarly hasten their death, would violate the amendment’s equal protection guarantee because it treated the two groups differently.

a. Are the two groups—patients refusing care and an individual wishing a lethal prescription—the same?

b. The U.S. Supreme Court did not find a right to die under the Constitution. Do you think this was the right decision?

Answer 1

a. Are the two groups—patients refusing care and an individual wishing a lethal prescription—the same? - No, The patient's refusing the life-support during the end of life stage is different from taking the lethal prescription that invites death, both must considered differently.

b. The U.S. Supreme Court did not find a right to die under the Constitution. Do you think this was the right decision? Yes, because not including the "Right to die" in the constitution remains the chances of survival open for all the individuals in any situation in their lives and protect the "Right to life."