Charles E. Hall, 35, suffers from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), which he contracted from a blood transfusion. Mr. Hall is terminally ill and in deteriorating health. Mr. Hall asked a physician, Cecil McIver, M.D., to give him a prescription for a drug that Mr. Hall could take to bring on his death when he reaches the point where he is convinced that his only alternative is to suffer for a prolonged period. Dr. McIver and Mr. Hall then sought a declaratory judgment that Dr. McIver would be constitutionally protected in fulfilling Mr. Hall's request and would not be prosecuted under the state's prohibition against assisting in a suicide.
The trial court ruled that Mr. Hall has a constitutional right to seek his physician's assistance in terminating his own suffering under both the Florida Privacy Amendment and the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. The state appealed.
The Supreme Court of Florida reverses. First, it notes that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Vacco v. Quill, 65 U.S.L.W. 4695 (U.S. June 26, 1997), held that prohibitions on assisted suicide do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court then turns to the question of whether Mr. Hall has a privacy right to assisted suicide. While noting that in the past it has ruled that there is a constitutional privacy right to refuse medical treatment, the court concludes that there is a meaningful difference between refusing medical treatment and obtaining a physician's assistance in committing suicide. The court holds that the state's interest in preserving life, preventing suicide, and maintaining the ethical integrity of the medical profession all outweigh Mr. Hall's privacy interest. Nevertheless, the court adds: "We do not hold that a carefully drafted statute authorizing assisted suicide would be unconstitutional."
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
