A DECISÃO DA SUPREMA CORTE DOS ESTADOS UNIDOS SOBRE O SUICÍDIO ASSISTIDO: WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG
Resumo
Neste artigo, estudou-se o caso Washington v Glucksberg, no qual se discutia a constitucionalidade da criminalização do suicídio assistido. Usou-se o método historiográfico com consulta a fontes primárias. Observou-se que a SCOTUS por unanimidade não reconheceu uma liberdade constitucional genérica a cometer suicídio, afastando também o direito de ser assistido ao fazê-lo. Notou-se que a Corte não debateu dignidade nem autonomia, focando majoritariamente no tratamento histórico da matéria e nos interesses estatais que justificavam a proibição. Concluiu-se que a Corte deu aos estados a responsabilidade de legislar sobre o suicídio assistido, mantendo assim a constitucionalidade da lei de Washington.
Palavras-chave
Texto completo:
PDFReferências
BRADFORD, Jennifer. Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg: thou shalt not kill, unless your state permits physician-assisted suicide. Pepperdine Law Review, vol. 26, n. 1, 1998.
CALABRESI, Steven G.; AGUDO, Sarah E. Individual rights under state constitutions when the fourteenth amendment was ratified in 1868: what rights are deeply rooted in American history and tradition? Texas Law Review, vol. 87, 2008.
CHEMERINSKY, Erwin. Washington v.Glucksberg was tragically wrong. Michigan Law Review, vol. 106, n. 8, 2008.
DATLOF, Steven B. Beyond Washington v Glucksberg: Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act analyzed from medical and constitutional perspectives. Journal of Law and Health, vol. 14, n. 1, 1999.
FLEMMING, James E. Constitutional tragedy in dying: responses to some common arguments against the constitutional right to die. Fordham Urban Law Journal, vol. 24, n. 4, 1997.
GLYNN, Katherine C. Turning to state legislatures to legalize physician-assisted suicide for seriously ill, non-terminal patients after Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg. Journal of Law and Policy, vol. 6, n. 1, 1997.
GRABOYES-RUSSO, Stephanie. Too costly to live: the moral hazards of a decision in Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill. University of Miami Law Review, vol. 51, n. 3, 1997.
HANAFIN, Patrick. Rights of passage: law and the biopolitics of dying. In: BRAIDOTTI, R.; COLEBROOK, C.; HANAFIN, Patrick (eds.). Deleuze and law: forensic futures. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Publishers Limited, 2009.
HANSEN, Alexa. Unqualified interests, definitive definitions: Washington v. Glucksberg and the definition of life. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, vol. 36, n. 1, 2008.
KAMISAR, Yale. On the meaning and impact of the physician-assisted suicide cases. University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository, 1998.
KAMISAR, Yale. Can Glucksberg survive Lawrence? Another look at the end of life and personal autonomy. University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository, 2008.
MILLER, Margaret P. Boot-strapping down a slippery slope in the second and ninth circuits: compassion in dying is neither compassionate nor constitutional. Creighton Law Review, vol. 30, 1997.
PLAYER, Candice T. Death with dignity and mental disorder. Arizona Law Review, vol. 60, 2018.
SHEPHERD, Lois. Dignity and autonomy after Washington v. Glucksberg: an essay about abortion, death, and crime. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 07, n. 2, 1998.
TESTA, Nicole. Sentenced to life? An analysis of the United States Supreme Court’s Decision in Washington v. Glucksberg. Nova Law Review, vol. 22, n. 3, 1998.
TUCKER, Kathryn L. In the laboratory of the states: the progress of Glucksberg’s invitation to states to address end-of-life choice. Michigan Law Review, vol. 106, n. 8, 2008.
WASHINGTON et al. v. Glucksberg et al., 521 US 702 (1997).
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26668/IndexLawJournals/2525-9695/2021.v7i2.8138
Apontamentos
- Não há apontamentos.
Este obra está licenciado com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.