Formal Legal Brief Analysis - Essay Example

Both the District Court and then the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit expressed the view that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution encompasses a due process liberty interest in controlling the time and manner of one’s death and that the Washington statute is unconstitutional when it applies to terminally ill competent adults who want to hasten their deaths.

Whether the Washington state statute which holds that a person assists in hastening the death of terminally ill people is unconstitutional as it violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The Washing State statute which holds that a person who knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide is guilty of a felony of promoting suicide attempt is not unconstitutional as it does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.

The first point is that the due process clause does not protect the right to commit suicide and hence the same does not allow the right to assist in committing suicide. Secondly, from the legal traditions of the nation and its history, it is evident that the due process clause does not consider the right to assistance in committing suicide as a fundamental liberty interest.

First of all, a patient who is suffering from such a terminal illness with extreme pain has no legal barriers to getting such medications which will even cause unconsciousness and hasten death if the main purpose is to help reduce pain. In such a situation, it is unnecessary to answer the question of whether a mentally competent person with great suffering and pain has a constitutionally cognizable interest to control his or her death.

Secondly, liberty as protected under the due process clause does not include the right to commit suicide. If this is so, the clause does not also allow the right to assist a person in committing suicide. Thirdly, the court pointed out the shortcomings in the assisted suicide guidelines in the Netherlands. As it is evident that the Washington state statute shows an interest to protect terminally ill patients from involuntary suicide and euthanasia the statute is protecting the right of terminally ill people. Moreover, there is the issue that in such an emerging issue like assisted suicide, legislative institutional competence is more important than court decisions.

The court held that the liberty interest protected by the Constitution in the case of dying with dignity is the right to avoid unnecessary and severe physical suffering. As far as a state statute does not impact this right, it is not possible to claim that the state statute is unconstitutional.

The court decision made it clear that the right to assist in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty as protected under the due process clause. In other words, this right is not deeply rooted in the nation’s legal tradition.