PAST ARTICLES AND EDITORIAL BOARDS Volume VI, No. 1 - 1997
TURNING TO STATE LEGISLATURES TO LEGALIZE PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED
SUICIDE FOR SERIOUSLY ILL, NON-TERMINALPATIENTS
AFTER VACCO v. QUILL AND WASHINGTON v. GLUCKSBERG
Katherine C. Glynn
6 J.L. & Pol'y 329 (1997)
In 1997, two cases were brought before the Supreme Court of United States by physicians and their terminally-ill patients who sought to commit physician-assisted suicide. The two cases, Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg both challenged the constitutionality of state laws banning assisted suicide and in both cases, the challenges were defeated. However, these cases have not effectively eliminated the possibility for legalization of physician-assisted suicide. The Court based its decision not to accord fundamental right status to physician-assisted suicide on history and tradition and thus held that it was up to the individual states to determine whether to accord such status to the practice.

Within the bounds of Quill and Glucksberg, the proponents of physician-assisted suicide will revitalize their legislative campaign to legalize assisted suicide. The author predicts, however, that the proponents will, as in the past, most likely focus on the terminally-ill, mentally competent patients only and overlook the rights of the seriously ill, mentally competent but non-terminal individuals. Seriously ill, non-terminal patients who suffer from unimaginable pain and indignity resulting from their illnesses are arguably similarly situated to terminally-ill patients wishing to die.

This Note argues under Equal Protection analysis that any campaign to legalize physician-assisted suicide should encompass the rights of the seriously ill, non-terminal individuals also. The purpose of legislation legalizing physician-assisted suicide is to permit gravely ill individuals to end their pain and suffering. The right to do so ought to be conferred to both groups of patients.