Body Searches

(2023)

In 2023, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that Washington's assisted suicide law, also known as the Death with Dignity Act, does not violate the state's Constitution. The Court found that the law is consistent with the state's right to life and liberty.

In 2008, Washington passed the Death with Dignity Act, which allows terminally ill adults to obtain a prescription for medication to end their lives. The law has been challenged by several different groups, including religious organizations and anti-assisted suicide advocates.

In State v. Padgett, the plaintiff, Steven Padgett, challenged the constitutionality of the Death with Dignity Act. Padgett is a former prosecutor who is opposed to assisted suicide. He argued that the law violates the state's Constitution by allowing the intentional taking of human life.

The Washington Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Death with Dignity Act does not violate the state's Constitution. The Court found that the law is consistent with the state's right to life and liberty. The Court stated that "the right to life does not guarantee an absolute right to life at all costs." The Court also found that the Death with Dignity Act is "a carefully crafted law that protects the rights of both terminally ill patients and the state."

The Washington Supreme Court upheld the Death with Dignity Act. The Court also ordered the state to continue to enforce the law. The Washington Supreme Court's decision in State v. Padgett is a significant victory for the right to assisted suicide in Washington. The decision makes it clear that Washington residents have the right to make their own decisions about their end of life. The Washington Supreme Court's decision in State v. Padgett was widely reported on by the media and quickly went viral on social media. The decision has been praised by assisted suicide advocates and criticized by some religious groups.

Pretty v United Kingdom: Diane Pretty died of natural causes on 11 May 2002 from motor neurone disease, a paralysing, degenerative and incurable illness. Her fight to choose the time and manner of her death assisted by her husband was a resounding legal failure. A unanimous body of judicial opinion in both the English Divisional Court and the House of Lords, followed by the European Court of Human Rights, denied that her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been infringed. Thus, the refusal of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to exempt Mrs. Pretty's husband from prosecution to undertake efforts to assist Mrs. Pretty in taking her own life was ultimately held to be lawful. At the same time, the domestic legal prohibition on assisting suicide.