Introducing
Prezi AI.
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
Loading…
Vacco v. Quill
9
Transcript
Vacco v. Quill
Date of Decision: June 26, 1997
William Rehnquist
The court of appeals viewed removal of life support and assisted suicide as like actions. New York appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court agreed to hear the case.They thought it was a good example to bring awareness that in no way does the 14th amendment include the right to perform suicide or assistance to doing so.
Monica Villarreal
Period 2
Physician-assisted suicide, or simply assisted suicide, means that one individual, most often a doctor, helps another to take his own life. Generally, a physician does this by prescribing a lethal (deadly) dose of a drug which the patient may then use to commit suicide.
The Equal Protection Clause is portion of the Fourteenth Amendment, it commands that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction (geographical area over which it has control) the equal protection of the laws." Equal protection of the laws means individuals in like situations must be treated the same.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is one of the thirteen United States Courts of Appeals.
Decision: Ruling in favor of New York state, the Court decided laws banning physician-assisted suicide do not violate the constitutional equal protection guarantees.
In the year 2000 only Oregon allowed assisted suicide and no cases challenging the law had yet reached the courts. Americans continued their earnest debate about the legality and morality of physician-assisted suicide.
WHAT:
WHEN/ WHERE:
WHO:
Upholding the state law, the District Court disagreed with the physicians but the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed (changing an earlier decision by a lower court) the district court's decision.
Petitioners: Dennis C. Vacco; the New York Attorney General
Respondents: Timothy E. Quill, Samuel C. Klagsbrun, Howard A. Grossman; were physicians and were accompanied by three gravely ill patients.
Justices for the Court: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist,Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg...
The physicians argued that terminally-ill patients receiving life-prolonging treatment could choose to die by ending the treatment, but those not receiving life-prolonging treatment could not choose to end their lives with medical assistance. They claimed refusing the treatment was essentially the same as physician-assisted suicide. Therefore, the New York law did not treat all terminally-ill competent persons wishing to end their life the same. It treated those on life support one way and those not on life support another way and, therefore, violated "equal protection under the laws."
Location: New York State Capitol
.
WHY:
EFFECTS:
There were no laws changed, only enforced; the fourteenth amendment.
Date Argued: January 8, 1997
Final dedication date: June 26, 1997
Choose a template
Presentations from around the world
Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi