1 / 10

Vacco v. Quill (1997)

Vacco v. Quill (1997). Assisted Suicide By Walker Dunnavant. Background. Starting in the mid 1960s many states including the state of New York began to prohibit the practice of assisted suicide. Reason for ban was that the doctor or physician involved would be a murderer.

agatha
Télécharger la présentation

Vacco v. Quill (1997)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Vacco v. Quill (1997) Assisted Suicide By Walker Dunnavant

  2. Background • Starting in the mid 1960s many states including the state of New York began to prohibit the practice of assisted suicide. • Reason for ban was that the doctor or physician involved would be a murderer. • It was ok to refuse treatment but not give someone a shot to end their life.

  3. Background Continued • Dr. Timothy E. Quill along with three of his patients that died before the trial and three other doctors that thought that they should be protected filed to defend assisted suicide. • They took the Attorney General of New York, Dennis C. Vacco, to court in 1996 to the District Court in New York.

  4. Defendants (Respondents) • Felt that patients had the right to die given to them in the Constitution. • Strongly suggested that the ban on assisted suicide was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

  5. Plaintiffs • The State of New York along with their Attorney General Dennis Vacco • Saw assisted suicide as murder and doctors should be charged appropriately • Assisted suicide and refusing treatment are not the same.

  6. District Court • In favor of the State of New York • Saw the ban as protecting vulnerable people and preserving their lives • Law was not unconstitutional • Needed New York to change law not court.

  7. Court of Appeals • Reversed District Court’s opinion because it violated the Equal Protection Clause • Did not treat patients the same that are near the end of their life were being treated fairly • Saw that assisted suicide and pulling the plug on someone was the same thing

  8. Supreme Court • Unanimous 9-0 decision in favor of the State of New York • Said the ban did not interfere with fundamental rights to the person • Saw the difference in murdering and allowing to die • The prohibition on assisted suicide was a right that New York and all other states were allowed to create protected by the Constitution.

  9. Political Impact • Most people agreed with the decision of the Supreme Court’s opinion • Many other states started placing programs to slow or stop physician assisted suicide • Some still felt assisted suicide should be legal for the terminally ill patients that are in great pain

  10. Works Cited • http://www.lippes.com/image/?action=resize&m_w=285&m_h=600&u=1&path=/files/images/profiles/DennisVacco_DC-2601365_BizExp.jpg • http://www.compassionandchoices.org/what-we-do/in-the-courts/ • http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_960w/Boston/2011-2020/2012/11/08/BostonGlobe.com/ReceivedContent/Images/1111toon_wasserman.jpg

More Related