{"id":{"repo_id":"unlv","oai_identifier":"oai:oasis.library.unlv.edu:rtds-1871"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/unlv/oai:oasis.library.unlv.edu:rtds-1871","repository":{"repo_id":"unlv","name":"University of Nevada - Las Vegas","base_url":"https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/do/oai/"},"display":{"title":"Physician-assisted suicide: The courts leave it to the states","abstract":"In Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court ruled that laws in New York and Washington prohibiting physician-assisted suicide violated neither the Due Process nor the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court overturned decisions from the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Court stated these decisions do not prevent a state from enacting legislation approving assisted suicide, but there is no protection of such under the Constitution. This thesis examines the legal reasoning used by the two Courts of Appeal in their decisions and the Supreme Court in its decision. There is a review of the three critical precedent-establishing cases and some of the amicus briefs submitted. The final section will focus on the States, primarily Oregon, where after two elections and a lengthy legal battle citizens legalized physician-assisted suicide, as well as various proposals for state control of physician-assisted suicide.","abstract_html":"In Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court ruled that laws in New York and Washington prohibiting physician-assisted suicide violated neither the Due Process nor the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court overturned decisions from the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Court stated these decisions do not prevent a state from enacting legislation approving assisted suicide, but there is no protection of such under the Constitution. This thesis examines the legal reasoning used by the two Courts of Appeal in their decisions and the Supreme Court in its decision. There is a review of the three critical precedent-establishing cases and some of the amicus briefs submitted. The final section will focus on the States, primarily Oregon, where after two elections and a lengthy legal battle citizens legalized physician-assisted suicide, as well as various proposals for state control of physician-assisted suicide.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Newton, David Wayne"],"institution":"University of Nevada, Las Vegas","degree_name":"Master of Arts (MA)","degree_level":"Thesis","degree_discipline":"Political Science","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Jerry Simich"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1998,"date_issued":"1998-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"1998-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:24:45Z","subjects":[],"languages":[],"rights":["IN COPYRIGHT. For more information about this rights statement, please visit http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/rtds/872"],"render_values":[{"text":"https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/rtds/872","href":"https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/rtds/872","code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.25669/rtbd-86vx","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Jerry Simich"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Newton, David Wayne"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["University of Nevada, Las Vegas"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Political Science"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Arts (MA)"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["IN COPYRIGHT. For more information about this rights statement, please visit http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["10.25669/rtbd-86vx","https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/rtds/872","https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/context/rtds/article/1871/viewcontent/uc.pdf"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["In Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court ruled that laws in New York and Washington prohibiting physician-assisted suicide violated neither the Due Process nor the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court overturned decisions from the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Court stated these decisions do not prevent a state from enacting legislation approving assisted suicide, but there is no protection of such under the Constitution. This thesis examines the legal reasoning used by the two Courts of Appeal in their decisions and the Supreme Court in its decision. There is a review of the three critical precedent-establishing cases and some of the amicus briefs submitted. The final section will focus on the States, primarily Oregon, where after two elections and a lengthy legal battle citizens legalized physician-assisted suicide, as well as various proposals for state control of physician-assisted suicide."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Physician-assisted suicide: The courts leave it to the states"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Jerry Simich"],"dc:creator":["Newton, David Wayne"],"dc:description.abstract":["In Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg, the Supreme Court ruled that laws in New York and Washington prohibiting physician-assisted suicide violated neither the Due Process nor the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court overturned decisions from the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Court stated these decisions do not prevent a state from enacting legislation approving assisted suicide, but there is no protection of such under the Constitution. This thesis examines the legal reasoning used by the two Courts of Appeal in their decisions and the Supreme Court in its decision. There is a review of the three critical precedent-establishing cases and some of the amicus briefs submitted. The final section will focus on the States, primarily Oregon, where after two elections and a lengthy legal battle citizens legalized physician-assisted suicide, as well as various proposals for state control of physician-assisted suicide."],"dc:format":["pdf"],"dc:identifier":["10.25669/rtbd-86vx","https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/rtds/872","https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/context/rtds/article/1871/viewcontent/uc.pdf"],"dc:publisher":["University of Nevada, Las Vegas"],"dc:rights":["IN COPYRIGHT. For more information about this rights statement, please visit http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:title":["Physician-assisted suicide: The courts leave it to the states"],"dc:type":["Text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Political Science"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Arts (MA)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:24:45Z"}