Compassion in Dying v. Washington

Opinion by Judge NOONAN; Dissent by Judge WRIGHT.

The State of Washington (Washington) appeals the decision of the district court holding unconstitutional Washington’s statute on promoting a suicide attempt. Finding no basis for concluding that the statute violates the Constitution, we reverse the district court.

The Statute

The challenged statute reads as follows:

The Plaintiffs

Compassion in Dying is a nonprofit incorporated in the state of Washington. Its avowed purpose is to assist persons described by it as “competent” and “terminally ill” to hasten their deaths by providing them information, counselling, and emotional support but not by administering fatal medication.

Three individuals were plaintiffs in their own right. Their identities are cloaked by an order permitting them to litigate under pseudonyms. They are now deceased. Jane Roe was a 69-year-old physician, suffering from cancer; she had been bedridden for seven months at the time the suit was brought and died before judgment was entered by the district court. John Doe was a 44-year-old artist, who was partially blind at the time of suit and was also suffering from AIDS; he had been advised that his disease…

dissenting:

This case involves the state’s power arbitrarily to deprive terminally ill, mentally competent adults of the right to choose how to die. Because RCW 9A.36.060 violates plaintiffs’ privacy and equal protection rights, I dissent. The majority’s approach subjects such patients to unwanted and needless suffering. See Brief of Amicus Curiae of Ten Surviving Family Members In Support of Physician-Assisted “Suicide.”

The majority views the asserted right as illimitable because it depends upon the meaning of “terminally ill.” 1 But if we were to affirm, our task would not be to specify the parameters of the right. We are limited, as was the district court, to the dispute before us. The majority’s “depressed twenty-one year old” is not a party before us. 2 The *595 deceased plaintiff patients were terminally ill, mentally competent adults, entitled to be free from unwarranted state interference in their last days.

A. Due Process

1. Privacy Right

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 2791 , 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992), defines the scope of protected liberty interests. The Court there explained that:

Id. at —, 112 S.Ct. at 2807 . The majority contends that this…