A statute prohibiting assisted suicide did not violate the Privacy Clause of the Florida Constitution or the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The state had a compelling interest in preventing destructive medical acts, preserving life, protecting patients from suicidal impulses and preserving the fundamental role of physician as healer.
The 35-year old plaintiff was dying from AIDS. He and his doctor were in agreement regarding his request for a lethal injection that would hasten his death. While Florida had no law against suicide, the legislature imposed criminal responsibility on anyone assisting a person in committing suicide. The plaintiff's doctor would face a manslaughter charge. The patient and his physician turned to the court for relief, arguing that the statute prohibiting assisted suicide violated state and federal constitutional rights. The lower court agreed and issued an injunction preventing the state from prosecuting the physician. The state appealed and the Florida Supreme Court provided for expedited review.
The Supreme Court differentiated between refusing medical treatment and obtaining a physician's assistance in committing suicide. The state's interest in preserving life, protecting innocent third parties, preventing suicide and maintaining the ethical integrity of the medical profession were not sufficiently compelling to override a patient's right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. However, allowing a physician to hasten death via lethal medicine administered intravenously "is an affirmative act designed to cause death—no matter how well-grounded the reasoning behind it."
The Court was presented with numerous competing moral arguments from groups as diverse as Not Dead Yet (a disability rights advocacy group), The Florida Silver Haired Legislature, The American Medical Association, and the Knights of Columbus. The Court acknowledged the sincerity of the public policy arguments, but refused to decide the matter based on its own assessment of the strength of the moral arguments. The judiciary, affirmed this Court, "is the least capable of receiving public input and resolving broad public policy questions based on a societal consensus. The Court pointed out that its decision in this case was not a message that a carefully constructed statute authorizing assisted suicide would be unconstitutional. The legal dilemma was passed back to the Florida legislature.
