Vacco v. Quill

Media Items
Vacco v. Quill - Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Vacco v. Quill - Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Dennis C. Vacco (Argued the cause for the petitioners, on behalf of the Petitioners)
Laurence H. Tribe (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Walter E. Dellinger, III (on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
95-1858
Petitioner: 
Vacco
Respondent: 
Quill
Opinion: 
521 U.S. 793 (1997)
Location No location information present.

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Vacco v. Quill , 521 U.S. 793 (1997)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1858)
Facts of the Case: 

Dr. Timothy E. Quill, along with other physicians and three seriously ill patients who have since died, challenged the constitutionality of the New York State's ban on physician-assisted suicide. New York's ban, while permitting patients to refuse lifesaving treatment on their own, has historically made it a crime for doctors to help patients commit or attempt suicide, even if patients are terminally ill or in great pain. Following a District Court ruling favoring the State of New York, the Second Circuit reversed and the Supreme Court granted New York certiorari.

Question: 

Did New York's ban on physician-assisted suicide violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by allowing competent terminally ill adults to withdraw their own lifesaving treatment, but denying the same right to patients who could not withdraw their own treatment and could only hope that a physician would do so for them?

Conclusion: 

No. Employing a rationality test to examine the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause, the Court held that New York's ban was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, preventing euthanasia, shielding the disabled and terminally ill from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above all, the preservation of human life. Moreover, while acknowledging the difficulty of its task, the Court distinguished between the refusal of lifesaving treatment and assisted suicide, by noting that the latter involves the criminal elements of causation and intent. No matter how noble a physician's motives may be, he may not deliberately cause, hasten, or aid a patient's death.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Vacco, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Sort by Ideology

Wrote the majority opinion
Rehnquist
Wrote a special concurrence
Stevens
Wrote a regular concurrence
O'Connor
Voted with the majority
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote a special concurrence
Souter
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Wrote a special concurrence
Ginsburg
Wrote a special concurrence
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice William H. Rehnquist

Timeplots Affiliate

Timeplots.com: A Visual History of the Supreme Court