About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


84 Geo. L.J. 589 (1995-1996)
Assisted Suicide and Religion: Conflicting Conceptions of the Sanctity of Human Life

handle is hein.journals/glj84 and id is 609 raw text is: Assisted Suicide and Religion: Conflicting Conceptions of the Sanctity of Human Life MATTHEW P. PREVIN* Vex not his ghost: 0! let him pass; he hates him That would upon the rack of this tough world Stretch him out longer. King Lear[ INTRODUCTION Courts are divided over the claim that individuals have a Fourteenth Amend- ment liberty interest in physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia.2 Al- though the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to consider the issue, it is unlikely, given the current Court's disinclination to expand due process liberty interests,3 that the Court will find a liberty interest in either assisted suicide or active euthanasia. Curiously, however, religion has been ignored in the legal debate over assisted suicide and euthanasia. Such an omission is odd, given that religion lies at the very heart of the debate. This note proposes that the conflict over physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia stems from differing conceptions individuals hold about the sanctity of human life.4 Further, because conceptions of life's sanctity are religious beliefs, constitutional protections of religious liberty must allow individuals to act in conformity with these beliefs. This note considers the right to both physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia. Physician-assisted suicide is the facilitation by a doctor of a pa- * J.D., Georgetown University Law Center, 1996; B.A., Yale University, 1992. 1 would like to thank Professors Steven Goldberg, Kevin Quinn, Milton Regan, and Mark Tushnet for their helpful com- ments. 1. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, KING LEAR act 5, sc. 3, II. 312-14 (Kenneth Muir ed., Routledge 1990). 2. See, e.g., Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 49 F.3d 586 (9th Cir.) (holding that criminalization of physician-assisted suicide does not violate Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause), reh 'g en banc granted, 62 F.3d 299 (1995); Quill v. Koppel, 870 F. Supp. 78 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (same). In fact, one federal district court recently held that the legalization of physician-assisted suicide was unconstitu- tional. Lee v. Oregon, 891 F. Supp. 1429 (D. Or. 1995). The court in Lee struck down an Oregon law approved by ballot initiative in 1994 that legalized physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill. The court held that the law-the first of its kind in the United States-violated the Equal Protection Clause because it withheld from terminally ill patients the same protections from suicide the majority enjoys. Id. at 1438. As this note goes to press, the Ninth Circuit, en banc, reversed its earlier decision in Compassion in Dying, 49 F.3d 586, holding that the criminalization of physician-assisted suicide violates an individu- al's liberty interest in determining the time and manner of one's own death. Compassion in Dying v. Washington, No. 94-35534, 1996 WL 94848, at *I (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 1996) (en banc). 3. See, e.g., Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (denying constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy). 4. See RONALD DWORKIN, LIFE'S DOMINION 179-241 (1993). Dworkin argues that disagreements over the morality of euthanasia and abortion are essentially religious disagreements. He does not address, however, the constitutional implications of this claim with respect to euthanasia, although he does with respect to abortion.