Handout
Ronald Dworkin et al., “The Philosophers’ Brief”
Background
The “Philosopher’s Brief” is an Amici curiae brief to Vacco v. Quill (1997)
Background of about Vacco v. Quill
- New York enacts prohibition against physician-assisted suicide
- Physicians in New York file suit, arguing that law violates 14th Amendment
- Court of Appeals finds New York law unconstitutional
- U.S. Supreme Court hears case
- Issue: Whether a New York’s ban on physician-assisted suicide is constitutional
Citizens as Free and Autonomous Agents
Respect for Autonomous Agents
In the spirit of Kantian ethics
The liberty argument is a non-consequentialist argumentmade in the spirit of Kantian ethics. Like Kant, the authors base their argument on a certain conception of the individual (i.e., citizen).
Recall that Kant thought that human beings are unique in their capacities. Unlike animals, as rational beings, humans have the capacity to deliberate, to plan our lives, and to pursue goals that give our lives meaning. Our rationality – our capacity to act in accord with principles that further these values, goals, and meaning – gives us special status as beings with dignity and worth. Our rationality demands respect from others.
Autonomous agents
For the authors, what demands our respect is our autonomy (or freedom). As citizens in a free society, we are free and autonomous. It is from this status that we have a right to self-determination – to live our lives in accord with our own conscience, convictions, and conception of the good life.
“Certain decisions are momentous in their impact on the character of a person’s life – decisions about religious faith, political and moral allegiance, marriage, procreation, and death, for example […] In a free society, individuals must be allowed to make those decisions for themselves, out of their own faith, conscience, and convictions.” (Part I, beginning)
“What a person is, what he wants, the determination of his life plan, of his concept of the good, are the most intimate expressions of self-determination, and by asserting a person’s responsibility for the results of this self-determination, we give substance to the concept of liberty.” (Part I, middle)
First Argument: The Liberty Interest Argument
The authors assert that this right to self-determination is enshrined in and protected by the Constitution as well as several past Court decisions.
14th Amendment, Due Process Clause
“[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”
The authors assert that this Due Process Clause has provided the grounds for citizens being “allowed to make those decisions for themselves, out of their own faith, conscience, and convictions.”
End of life choices
The authors assert that the legal interpretations of the Due Process Clause also provide grounds for a right to die.
“A person’s interest in following his own convictions at the end of life is so central a part of the more general right to make ‘intimate and personal choices’ for himself that a failure to protect that particular interest would undermine the general right altogether. Death is, for each of us, among the most significant events of life.” (Part I, end)
“Most of us see death – whatever we think will follow it – as the final act of life’s drama, and we want that last act to reflect our own convictions, those we have tried to live by, not the convictions of others forced on us in our most vulnerable moment.” (Part I, middle)
Cruzan v. Missouri (1990) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992)
Besides the Due Process Clause, the authors assert that Casey v. Planned Parenthood, and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health also provide enshrine and protect the right to self-determination.
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990):
“Cruzan implied a state may not absolutely prohibit a doctor from deliberative causing death, at the patient’s request, in that way [i.e., letting die by terminating life support] and for that reason. If so, then a state may not prohibit doctors from deliberatively using more direct and often more humane means to the same end when that is what a patient prefers.” (Part
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992):
“The analysis inCaseycompels the conclusion that the patient-plaintiffs have a liberty interest in this case that a state cannot burden with a blanket prohibition. Like a woman’s decision whether to have an abortion, a decision to die involves one’s very “destiny” and inevitably will be “shaped to a large extent on [one’s] own conception of [one’s] spiritual imperatives and [one’s] place in society.”Id. at 852. Just as a blanket prohibition on abortion would involve the improper imposition of one conception of the meaning and value of human existence on all individuals, so too would a blanket prohibition on assisted suicide. The liberty interest asserted here cannot be rejected without undermining the rationale of Casey.” (Part II A)
Second Argument: Response to Solicitor General
Solicitor General’s Argument
The Solicitor General of the United States concedes that the liberal interest is relevant to the issue of physician assisted suicide.
The Solicitor General argues, however, that this liberty interest should be overridden by certain patient and social risks in permitting physician assisted suicide. (We will examine these risks later on when we read David Velleman.)
The Authors’ Response
The authors respond that these risk are real, but proper state regulation and oversight – not a blanket prohibition on physician assisted suicide – is what is justified.
1