Difference between revisions of "Washington v. Glucksberg"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: In ''Washington v. Glucksberg'', 521 U.S. 702 (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that the State of Washington's prohibition against "causing" or "aiding" a suicide doe...) |
m (bold) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Washington v. Glucksberg'', 521 U.S. 702 (1997), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held unanimously that the State of [[Washington]]'s prohibition against "causing" or "aiding" a suicide does not violate the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]]. | + | In '''''Washington v. Glucksberg''''', 521 U.S. 702 (1997), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held unanimously that the State of [[Washington]]'s prohibition against "causing" or "aiding" a suicide does not violate the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]]. |
Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] wrote the opinion for the Court, and the [[liberal]] wing concurred in a separate opinion. The Court reversed the decision of an ''en banc'' sitting of the [[Ninth Circuit]]: | Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] wrote the opinion for the Court, and the [[liberal]] wing concurred in a separate opinion. The Court reversed the decision of an ''en banc'' sitting of the [[Ninth Circuit]]: | ||
Revision as of 23:52, May 4, 2008
In Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that the State of Washington's prohibition against "causing" or "aiding" a suicide does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the Court, and the liberal wing concurred in a separate opinion. The Court reversed the decision of an en banc sitting of the Ninth Circuit:
- Throughout the Nation, Americans are engaged in an earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality of physician-assisted suicide. Our holding permits this debate to continue, as it should in a democratic society. The decision of the en banc Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.