2.Privacy+Issues

II. Privacy issues Griswold v Connecticut Roe v Wade In re Quinlan Cruzan v Director, Missouri Dept of Health Washington v Glucksberg


 * Privacy Issues **

Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.
 * Griswold v Connecticut **
 * // What was the case about? //**

Summary: After a night of ingesting alcohol and tranquilizers, Karen Ann Quinlan passed out and stopped breathing for two 15-minute periods. She was then determined to be in a permanent vegetative state. Her father wanted to take her off life support, but her primary physician and the hospital both refused to do so.
 * In Re Quinlan **

Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Quinlan's father, and she was taken off life support and died several years later from pneumonia. The court in this case ruled in favor of Quinlan's right to privacy to end life-sustaining medical treatments **// (either directly or through a legal guardian - in this case, Quinlan's father) //** over the hospital's interest in preserving human life and defending the right of a physician to administer medical treatment according to his or her best judgment.

The controversial case, Roe Versus Wade, decided whether or not abortion should be legal or not. The lawyer who fought the case did so under amendment of privacy. Making abortion a privacy issue. It is illegal to, “depriv[ing] any person of … liberty … without due process of law”. Meaning that it would take away from ones freedom of privacy if they couldn’t make the choice to abort their own child. The unborn, according to the amendment, is not considered a person, because it is still in the mother, and isn’t fully devolved. (This was the argument the lawyer chooses to use). However at certain stages the unborn life is more valued as it is harder to get an abortion in the second and third trimesters. The courts decided that abortion would be legal in the 1rst trimester and would be restricted in the second and third trimesters.
 * Roe v Wade **
 * // The decision here was not about abortion - it was about privacy and medical decisions. The Court determined that during the 1st trimester, health considerations that include abortion are a privacy matter, and as such, the government has no constitutional right to intervene. After the first amendment, states could restrict abortions, but the federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do so. //**


 * Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept of Health **

In 1983 a woman, Nancy Beth Cruzan met with a car accident witch left her in a "persistent vegetative state". She remained like this for several weeks and was fed through a implanted gastronomy tube. Cruzan's parents wanted to terminate the life support system but state hospital officials refused to do this without court approval. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the hospitals. The Cruzan's were not able to remove the life support system. The Court said that individuals had the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause. Her parents did not have the right to make a decision for her unless there was complete proof stating that Nancy was willing to let go of the life support system. Because there was no family member who would act in the best interests of the incompetent Nancy, and because erroneous decisions to withdraw treatment were irreversible, the Court upheld the state's heightened evidentiary requirements and Nancy was left on life support. **// (Reinforced the Quinlan decision - individuals have the right to die - can't force treatment on them) //**


 * Washington v Glucksberg (1997) **

This case involved the issue of whether or not physician assisted-suicides should be legal or not in the State of Washington. Four physicians, including a Dr. Harold Glucksberg, brought this case to the court to challenge the ban that Washington had previously put on the state and individual’s rights to assist in suicides, which was considered to be a criminal act. Glucksberg argued that this ban was unconstitutional because it violated Amendment four, and the due process clause it promised. This is because it questioned if individuals had the right and freedom to choose dying over living. The case’s conclusion was that the ban was //not// unconstitutional and assisted-suicide does not constitute as a liberty that can be protected to the Due Process Clause of the fourth Amendment. The reasoning behind this ruling was that acts like assisted-suicide are offensive and go against our nation’s fundamental principles. In other words, assisted suicide is illegal because it promotes ideas against the preservation of human life, an idea that has been protected throughout the American history, and violates medical ethics.