Vacco vs. Quill - Research Paper Example

Vacco vs. Quill Prior to the case, the New York did not allow physician assisted suicide so as to save guard life and such an incident was regarded as a murder case which was punishable in a court of law and that meant that it could attract even a death sentence. The United States Constitution allowed the states the democratic space to pass state laws that were for the benefit of the state citizens. The doctors felt that the law was interfering with the medical standards that allowed them to assist terminally ill patients to end their lives so as to relieve them the pain associated with the disease. The District Court upheld the state law since it was the state that was allowed to make laws that govern the state so long as they don’t contradict the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeal reversed the ruling on the basis that the prohibition led to violation of Fourteenth Amendment clause that called for Equal Protection. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court finally for further clarification. The New York state had passed a law in 1965 that barred physicians from assisting terminally patients end their life although it allowed patients to refuse treatment even if it is life saving to them. According to Enotes, the respondents Samuel C. Klagsbrun, Timothy E. Quill and Howard A. Grossman who were physicians in New York backed by three terminally ill patients who wanted to be allowed to terminate their lives. They presented their case in the United States District Court accusing the New York State Attorney, Dennis Vacco, of the state barring them from prescribing lethal medicine to mentally stable but very ill patients who are under unendurable pain and desire to end their suffering through the doctor’s assistance to end their lives although the medical standards allow them. They based their argument on the fact that New York State allowed a patient to decline life saving medical treatment; this act is the same essentially as suicide assisted by the doctor, the ban on assisted murder therefore violated the constitutional Equal Protection Clause. The District Court turned their request down: “It is hardly unreasonable or irrational for the state to recognize a difference between allowing nature to take its course, even in the most severe situations, and intentionally using an artificial death producing device” (Tannsjo 54). The court based its argument on the fact that the United states Constitution allowed the states normal democratic processes and that meant that New York had a legitimate right to protect vulnerable citizens and generally preserve life. The second circuit was reversed by the Court of Appeal; it determined that despite the general application of the ban on the assisted suicide, the New York state law did not exercise equality for not treating equally all the mentally competent people who are in their last stages of their sickness and are opting to end their suffering by prematurely terminating their lives (Tannsjo 90). Those in the their final stages of their illness and in the life support machines could direct the removal of those machines thus terminating their life in the process as opposed to those who are in a similar situation except the use of life support machines on them, who could not be allowed to order for the hastening of their life end through drug administration. The Court viewed the ending of one’s life through the withdrawal of the life support machines as similar to assisted suicide. The court was to determine whether the unequal treatment of the patients related in any way legitimately to the state interests, the conclusion of the court was that the New York statutes that prohibited a terminally ill patient with sound mind on the final stages from assisted suicide were not rationally in any way legitimately related to the state interests. The Court Of Appeal therefore reversed the District Court’s ruling. The State Attorney, Dennis Vacco, appealed in the Supreme Court and it gave a landmark ruling regarding the right to die. The right to die is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was headed by Justice William Rehnquist and other judges included; John Stevens, Sandra O’Connor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and David Souter. The Court considered various opinions that had been given previously, like the San Antonio School District vs. Rodriguez U.S (1973) which claimed that the court should look at the constitution and not the importance of right that is stated when determining whether that rightness is fundamental (Osten and Sears 98). Therefore it brought the opinion that the New York State did not interfere with any fundamental right because respondents were not of the opinion that the right to die was a fundamental right. The court considered the actor’s intent in any action although the end might be similar. Applying intent at the matter, the difference between a doctor who withdraws a life support machine at the request of the patient is only respecting the patient’s wish while the one who honors the request to terminate life requires more than respecting the wish because it involves the intent to kill. The former meant the patient will die from underlying causes while the latter meant death through the physician’s hands, after all the removing of the machine does not necessarily mean that it will result to death. Therefore the court recognized the difference between “letting die” and “killing.” The court decided on its verdict that there was no foul of the Equal protection clause in the New York laws and the state had the authority constitutionally to put the law into place. The surfaced the fact that the laws that prohibited assisted suicide are not unconstitutional according to the United States Constitution or when applied to mentally stable and terminally ill patients. Hence, for the mean time, the doctors should continue practicing what they used to practice initially. This confirmed to everybody that the Court was not sure whether the United States Constitution required the barring of assisted suicide. The ruling brought a number of changes in the U.S; the AIDS patients felt like the ruling was discriminating to them because the right to terminate life as a result of unendurable pain or shame was to depend on the patient’s decision, it provided an avenue for state laws that were against assisted suicide to be put in place. The medicine field had improved tremendously during the 20th century thus increasing the life expectancy of people, technology prolonged the period of terminally ill individuals who were not expected to recover leading to prolonged suffering although it was a positive development The issue attracted sympathy amongst many people over the plight of many aging individuals who were suffering and the HIV/AIDS patients who suffered very much because the disease is incurable. There was a spark of many debates with every trying to evaluate its own claim, the issue of abortion in relation to the case surfaced and profoundly the issue of human dignity came out strongly. The ruling sparked the debate among the citizens over the need of the advance directives which included the need of durable powers for the attorney and the writing of living wills under the laws of the state. There was a wide spread debate over who had the interests of the people at heart and on which institution had the right asses the wisdom of the appropriateness of the public policies and the subsequent judgment because the judiciary was seen as trumping the elected branch of the government. The same day the Vacco vs. Quill case was announced, another case, Washington et al vs. Glucksberg was announced too (Osten and Sears 143). In both cases, the rule specifically banned assisted suicide in New York and Washington states without violation the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment (Law, Science & Public Health Home). However, many judges involved gave concurring opinions that were agreeing but under different reasons which expanded into a discussion on how to handle “death with dignity” issues. The debates concerning the morality and ethical responsibility of the issue in the courts and in the general public because its evident that the doctors have to deal with such issues everyday with many patients asking for assistance to end their suffering through termination of their lives. Researches being carried out on physician assisted suicide but the researches don not come out clearly because most doctors are not ready to give any information and those researches that continue to the end come up with results that are not factual and thus unverifiable. On my opinion, the ruling was just to uphold the state law that bar the termination of the life prematurely but the judges should have stated the position held by the United States Constitution on the matter instead of being referred to laws governing each state. The formulation and use of controversial laws by the states had made slavery to flourish in the southern states which even attracted the secession war between the federal army and the confederation states in the south since the issue depended on the state laws. The Supreme Court should have stated the position of the country on the matter. The doctors’ opinion as a professional union should have been consulted to give views about their wish although the case involved doctors, in this way the ruling could have acknowledged all the relevant authorities concerning the case to avoid retaliations. Works Cited Enotes. Vacco v. Quill. Web May 8 2012. Law, Science & Public Health Home. Supreme Court Upholds Prohibitions on Assisted Suicide. Web May 8 2012. Osten, Craig and Sears, Alan. The ACLU vs. America: Exposing the Agenda to Redefine Moral Values. New York: B &H Books, 2005. Print. Tannsjo, Torbjorn. Terminal Sedation: Euthanasia in Disguise? Boston: Springer Publishers, 2010. Print. Read More