|
Edited on Sun Mar-20-05 03:08 PM by pacoyogi
This is a state issue, and the federales have no business getting involved. Some interesting fodder for the right wing..... I have posted Scalia's concurrent opinion from the case of Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, where a woman in PVS sought (through her guardians) to terminate her life. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 at 292: JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring. The various opinions in this case portray quite clearly the difficult, indeed agonizing, questions that are presented by the constantly increasing power of science to keep the human body alive for longer than any reasonable person would want to inhabit it. The States have begun to grapple with these problems through legislation. I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortion -- requiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune. While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide -- including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve his or her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life and death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable. The text of the Due Process Clause does not protect individuals against deprivations of liberty simpliciter. It protects them against deprivations of liberty "without due process of law." To determine that such a deprivation would not occur if Nancy Cruzan were forced to take nourishment against her will, it is unnecessary to reopen the historically recurrent debate over whether "due process" includes substantive restrictions. Compare Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 15 L. Ed. 372 (1856), with Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 450, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1857); compare Tyson & Brother v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418, 71 L. Ed. 718, 47 S. Ct. 426 (1927), with Olsen v. Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., Inc., 313 U.S. 236, 246-247, 85 L. Ed. 1305, 61 S. Ct. 862 (1941); compare Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 730, 10 L. Ed. 2d 93, 83 S. Ct. 1028 (1963), with Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 52 L. Ed. 2d 531, 97 S. Ct. 1932 (1977) (plurality opinion); see Easterbrook, Substance and Due Process, 1982 S. Ct. Rev. 85; Monaghan, Our Perfect Constitution, 56 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 353 (1981). It is at least true that no "substantive due process" claim can be maintained unless the claimant demonstrates that the State has deprived him of a right historically and traditionally protected against state <**2860> interference. Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 122, 105 L. Ed. 2d 91, 109 S. Ct. 2333 (1989) (plurality opinion); Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 192, 92 L. Ed. 2d 140, 106 S. Ct. 2841 (1986); Moore, 431 U.S. at 502-503 (plurality opinion). That cannot possibly be established here. At common law in England, a suicide -- defined as one who "deliberately puts an end to his own existence, or commits any unlawful malicious act, the consequence of which is his own death," 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *189 -- was criminally liable. Ibid. Although the States abolished the penalties imposed by the common law (i. e., forfeiture and ignominious burial), they did so to spare the innocent family and not to legitimize the act. Case law at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment generally held that assisting suicide was a criminal offense. See Marzen, O'Dowd, Crone, & Balch, Suicide: A Constitutional Right?, 24 Duquesne L. Rev. 1, 76 (1985) ("In short, twenty-one of the thirty-seven states, and eighteen of the thirty ratifying states prohibited assisting suicide. Only eight of the states, and seven of the ratifying states, definitely did not"); see also 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Law § 122 (6th rev. ed. 1868). The System of Penal Law presented to the House of Representatives by Representative Livingston in 1828 would have criminalized assisted suicide. E. Livingston, A System of Penal Law, Penal Code 122 (1828). The Field Penal Code, <*295> adopted by the Dakota Territory in 1877, proscribed attempted suicide and assisted suicide. Marzen, O'Dowd, Crone, & Balch, supra, at 76-77. And most States that did not explicitly prohibit assisted suicide in 1868 recognized, when the issue arose in the 50 years following the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification, that assisted and (in some cases) attempted suicide were unlawful. Id., at 77-100; id., at 148-242 (surveying development of States' laws). Thus, "there is no significant support for the claim that a right to suicide is so rooted in our tradition that it may be deemed 'fundamental' or 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'" Id., at 100 (quoting Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 82 L. Ed. 288, 58 S. Ct. 149 (1937)). Petitioners rely on three distinctions to separate Nancy Cruzan's case from ordinary suicide: (1) that she is permanently incapacitated and in pain; (2) that she would bring on her death not by any affirmative act but by merely declining treatment that provides nourishment; and (3) that preventing her from effectuating her presumed wish to die requires violation of her bodily integrity. None of these suffices. Suicide was not excused even when committed "to avoid those ills which had not the fortitude to endure." 4 Blackstone, supra, at *189. "The life of those to whom life has become a burden -- of those who are <***253> hopelessly diseased or fatally wounded -- nay, even the lives of criminals condemned to death, are under the protection of the law, equally as the lives of those who are in the full tide of life's enjoyment, and anxious to continue to live." Blackburn v. State, 23 Ohio St. 146, 163 (1873). Thus, a man who prepared a poison, and placed it within reach of his wife, "to put an end to her suffering" from a terminal illness was convicted of murder, People v. Roberts, 211 Mich. 187, 198, 178 N.W. 690, 693 (1920); the "incurable suffering of the suicide, as a legal question, could hardly affect the degree of criminality . . . ." Note, 30 Yale L. J. 408, 412 (1921) (discussing Roberts). Nor would the imminence of the patient's death have <*296> affected liability. "The lives of all are equally under the protection of the law, and under that protection to their last moment. . . . is declared by the law to be murder, irrespective of the wishes or the condition of the party to whom the poison is administered . . . ." Blackburn, supra, at 163; see also Commonwealth v. Bowen, 13 Mass. 356, 360 (1816).
<**2861> The second asserted distinction -- suggested by the recent cases canvassed by the Court concerning the right to refuse treatment, 497 U.S. at 270-277 -- relies on the dichotomy between action and inaction. Suicide, it is said, consists of an affirmative act to end one's life; refusing treatment is not an affirmative act "causing" death, but merely a passive acceptance of the natural process of dying. I readily acknowledge that the distinction between action and inaction has some bearing upon the legislative judgment of what ought to be prevented as suicide -- though even there it would seem to me unreasonable to draw the line precisely between action and inaction, rather than between various forms of inaction. It would not make much sense to say that one may not kill oneself by walking into the sea, but may sit on the beach until submerged by the incoming tide; or that one may not intentionally lock oneself into a cold storage locker, but may refrain from coming indoors when the temperature drops below freezing. Even as a legislative matter, in other words, the intelligent line does not fall between action and inaction but between those forms of inaction that consist of abstaining from "ordinary" care and those that consist of abstaining from "excessive" or "heroic" measures. Unlike action versus inaction, that is not a line to be discerned by logic or legal analysis, and we should not pretend that it is.
But to return to the principal point for present purposes: the irrelevance of the action-inaction distinction. Starving oneself to death is no different from putting a gun to one's temple as far as the common-law definition of suicide is concerned; the cause of death in both cases is the suicide's conscious <*297> decision to "put an end to his own existence." 4 Blackstone, supra, at *189. See In re Caulk, 125 N.H. 226, 232, 480 A.2d 93, 97 (1984); State ex rel. White v. Narick, 170 W. Va. 195, 292 S.E.2d 54 (1982); Von Holden v. Chapman, 87 A.D.2d 66, 450 N.Y.S.2d 623 (1982). Of course the common law rejected the action-inaction distinction in other contexts involving the taking of human life as well. In the prosecution of a parent for the starvation death of her infant, it was no defense that the infant's <***254> death was "caused" by no action of the parent but by the natural process of starvation, or by the infant's natural inability to provide for itself. See Lewis v. State, 72 Ga. 164 (1883); People v. McDonald, 49 Hun 67, 1 N.Y.S. 703 (5th Dept., App. Div. 1888); Commonwealth v. Hall, 322 Mass. 523, 528, 78 N.E.2d 644, 647 (1948) (collecting cases); F. Wharton, Law of Homicide §§ 134-135, 304 (2d ed. 1875); 2 J. Bishop, Commentaries on Criminal Law § 686 (5th ed. 1872); J. Hawley & M. McGregor, Criminal Law 152 (3d ed. 1899). A physician, moreover, could be criminally liable for failure to provide care that could have extended the patient's life, even if death was immediately caused by the underlying disease that the physician failed to treat. Barrow v. State, 17 Okla. Crim. 340, 188 P. 351 (1920); People v. Phillips, 64 Cal. 2d 574, 414 P.2d 353, 51 Cal. Rptr. 225 (1966).
It is not surprising, therefore, that the early cases considering the claimed right to refuse medical treatment dismissed as specious the nice distinction between "passively submitting to death and actively seeking it. The distinction may be merely verbal, as it would be if an adult sought death by starvation instead of a drug. If the State may interrupt one mode of self-destruction, it may with equal authority interfere with the other." John F. Kennedy Memorial Hosp. v. Heston, 58 N.J. 576, 581-582, 279 A.2d 670, 672-673 (1971); see also Application of President & Directors of Georgetown College, Inc., 118 U.S. App. D.C. 80, 88-89, 331 F.2d 1000, <*298> 1008-1009 (Wright, J., in chambers), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 978, 12 L. Ed. 2d 746, 84 S. Ct. 1883 (1964).
The third asserted basis of distinction -- that frustrating Nancy Cruzan's wish to die in the present case requires interference with her bodily integrity -- is likewise inadequate, because such interference is impermissible only if one begs the question whether her refusal to undergo the treatment on her own is suicide. It has always been lawful not <**2862> only for the State, but even for private citizens, to interfere with bodily integrity to prevent a felony. See Phillips v. Trull, 11 Johns. 486 (N. Y. 1814); City Council v. Payne, 11 S.C. L. 475, 2 Nott & McC. 475 (S. C. 1821); Vandeveer v. Mattocks, 3 Ind. 479 (1852); T. Cooley, Law of Torts 174-175 (1879); Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich. L. Rev. 673 (1924); Restatement of Torts § 119 (1934). That general rule has of course been applied to suicide. At common law, even a private person's use of force to prevent suicide was privileged. Colby v. Jackson, 12 N.H. 526, 530-531 (1842); Look v. Choate, 108 Mass. 116, 120 (1871); Commonwealth v. Mink, 123 Mass. 422, 429 (1877); In re Doyle, 16 R.I. 537, 539, 18 A. 159, 159-160 (1889); Porter v. Ritch, 70 Conn. 235, 255, 39 A. 169, 175 (1898); Emmerich v. Thorley, 35 A.D. 452, 456, 54 N.Y.S. 791, 793-794 (1898); State v. Hembd, 305 Minn. 120, 130, 232 N.W.2d 872, 878 (1975); 2 C. Addison, Law of Torts § 819 (1876); Cooley, supra, at 179-180. It is not even reasonable, much less required by the Constitution, to maintain that although the State has the right to prevent a person from slashing his wrists, it does not have the power to apply physical force to prevent him from doing so, nor the power, should he succeed, to apply, coercively if necessary, medical measures to stop the flow of blood. The state-run hospital, I am certain, is not liable under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 <***255> for violation of constitutional rights, nor the private hospital liable under general tort law, if, in a State where suicide is unlawful, it pumps out the stomach of a person who has intentionally <*299> taken an overdose of barbiturates, despite that person's wishes to the contrary.
The dissents of JUSTICES BRENNAN and STEVENS make a plausible case for our intervention here only by embracing -- the latter explicitly and the former by implication -- a political principle that the States are free to adopt, but that is demonstrably not imposed by the Constitution. "The State," says JUSTICE BRENNAN, "has no legitimate general interest in someone's life, completely abstracted from the interest of the person living that life, that could outweigh the person's choice to avoid medical treatment." 497 U.S. at 313 (emphasis added). The italicized phrase sounds moderate enough and is all that is needed to cover the present case -- but the proposition cannot logically be so limited. One who accepts it must also accept, I think, that the State has no such legitimate interest that could outweigh "the person's choice to put an end to her life." Similarly, if one agrees with JUSTICE BRENNAN that "the State's general interest in life must accede to Nancy Cruzan's particularized and intense interest in self-determination in her choice of medical treatment," post, at 314 (emphasis added), he must also believe that the State must accede to her "particularized and intense interest in self-determination in her choice whether to continue living or to die." For insofar as balancing the relative interests of the State and the individual is concerned, there is nothing distinctive about accepting death through the refusal of "medical treatment," as opposed to accepting it through the refusal of food, or through the failure to shut off the engine and get out of the car after parking in one's garage after work. Suppose that Nancy Cruzan were in precisely the condition she is in today, except that she could be fed and digest food and water without artificial assistance. How is the State's "interest" in keeping her alive thereby increased, or her interest in deciding whether she wants to continue living reduced? It seems to me, in other words, that JUSTICE BRENNAN's position ultimately rests upon the proposition that it is none of the State's <*300> business if a person wants to commit suicide. JUSTICE STEVENS is explicit on the point: "Choices about death touch the core of liberty . . . . Not much may be said with confidence about death unless it is said from faith, and that alone is reason enough to protect the freedom to conform choices about death to individual conscience." Post, at 343. This is a view that some societies have held, and that our States are free to adopt if they wish. But it is not a view imposed by our constitutional traditions, <**2863> in which the power of the State to prohibit suicide is unquestionable.
What I have said above is not meant to suggest that I would think it desirable, if we were sure that Nancy Cruzan wanted to die, to keep her alive by the means at issue here. I assert only that the Constitution has nothing to say about the subject. To raise up a constitutional right here we would have to create out of nothing (for it exists neither in text nor tradition) some constitutional principle whereby, although the <***256> State may insist that an individual come in out of the cold and eat food, it may not insist that he take medicine; and although it may pump his stomach empty of poison he has ingested, it may not fill his stomach with food he has failed to ingest. Are there, then, no reasonable and humane limits that ought not to be exceeded in requiring an individual to preserve his own life? There obviously are, but they are not set forth in the Due Process Clause. What assures us that those limits will not be exceeded is the same constitutional guarantee that is the source of most of our protection -- what protects us, for example, from being assessed a tax of 100% of our income above the subsistence level, from being forbidden to drive cars, or from being required to send our children to school for 10 hours a day, none of which horribles are categorically prohibited by the Constitution. Our salvation is the Equal Protection Clause, which requires the democratic majority to accept for themselves and their loved ones what they impose on you and me. This Court need not, and has no authority to, inject itself into every field of human activity <*301> where irrationality and oppression may theoretically occur, and if it tries to do so it will destroy itself.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
