What Amendment does someone need to use to justify assisted suicide?

Answer 1

To quote "COMPASSION IN DYING v WASHINGTON" a supreme court case on assisted suicide..

"The plaintiffs contend that the provision impermissibly prevents the exercise by terminally ill patients of a constitutionally-protected liberty interest in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and also that it impermissibly distinguishes between similarly situated terminally ill patients in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. "

The general idea is that the 14th amendment provides in it's first section "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Forbidding someone to kill themselves is in fact depriving them of their liberty without due process.

Unfortunately, the same amendment is used to counter that arguement, stating that "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In other words, a state can't allow assisted suicide under certain conditions because it does not apply equally to all (ie if a cancer patient can off themselves, that so should the guy who just wants to play russian roulette for fun).

Answer 2

The Supreme Court does not recognize a right to assisted suicide anywhere in the constitution. They have said that you don't have that right.

Answer 3

If someone wishes to die they should be counseled first.and if their in their right mind should be allowed to die any ole way they wish.theirs No needed amendment that I know of,this wouldn't be a constitutional amendment type of law.just a State law,I would reckon

Answer 4

if you are looking for a specific amendment it would be the tenth because it is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Therefore it is left to the states to decide what is right.

Answer 5

The Court first addressed the issue of the right to die in the 1990 case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. In Cruzan, the Court considered whether Missouri could insist on proof by "clear and convincing evidence" of a comatose patient's desire to terminate her life before allowing her family's wish to disconnect her feeding tube to be carried out. Although eight of nine justices--only Scalia disagreed--concluded that the right to die was a liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, a bare majority of the Court upheld the state's insistence upon clear and specific evidence that the patient would wish to have intravenous feeding discontinued. The Cruzan decision spurred considerable evidence in "living wills" which clearly express an individuals desire to discontinue treatment or feeding in specified circumstances. (Later, additional evidence of Nancy's wishes was discovered and feeding was discontinued, leading to her death.)
Seven years later the Court faced right to die issues again in two cases involving challenges to laws criminalizing physician-assisted suicide. The lower courts in each case, one involving a Washington state law and another a New York statute, found the laws unconstiutional--at least as applied (the 9th Circuit decision rested on due process right-to-privacy grounds, the 2nd Circuit decision on equal protection grounds.) The Supreme Court reversed in both cases, finding the laws to be constiutional. Although the Court interpreted Cruzan as recognizing a right to refuse medical treatment, the Court found no constitutional basis for a right to assisted suicide. Three justices in concurring opinions (O'Connor, Breyer, Stevens) indicated that they might be willing to uphold "more particularized challenges" to such laws, such as--for example--an as applied challenge to a state's refusal to assist a terminally ill patient in severe pain from ending his or her life.


In 2006, in Gonzales v Oregon, the Court decided another right-to-die case, although this one primarily on administrative law grounds, not constitutional grounds. Voting 6 to 3, the Court ruled that Attorney General Ashcroft exceeded his powers under the Controlled Substances Act when he threatened prosecution against Oregon doctors prescribing lethal drugs under that state's Death with Dignity Act. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy concluded that regulation of medical practices was primarily a job for the states and that Ashcroft failed to recognize "the background principles of our federal system."

Answer 6

The "I am a sissy and can't do it myself" ammendment

Answer 7

a request to die with dignity,is that to much to ask??