Talk:Washington v. Glucksberg

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Death: Suicide Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Merge header

I believe that Harold Glucksberg should merge to Washington v. Glucksberg. The Harold Glucksberg article only states that Glucksberg was one of the physicians involved in Washington vs. Glucksberg, duplicating what is mentioned in the Washington v. Glucksberg article. There is no reason to fork a separate biography about him at this time. Medtopic 20:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought redlinks should be avoided, and besides, it's around the same size as many biograhical stubs :/. Homestarmy 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If merge/redirected, the Wikilink will be removed. Stubs are one thing, but this is a duplicate of information in another article: The only factoid we have about him is that he was involved in Washington v. Glucksberg. Is there any other information about him that would warrant keeping it as a stub? Medtopic 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a stub and has the same information than the article Washington v. Glucksberg. It should be merged because more information cannot be added from books or from the information on the internet. It also is a non-notable person outside of the case he was in. Lincher 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's redundant and unnecessary. Unless someone knows anything else about this Glucksberg character, he doesn't need his own entry. Busterbros 01:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy

What the court held uninimously is that Washington's prohibition of physician-assisted suicide does not, on its face, violate the constitution. The article here attributes to all members of the court a broader claim, that assisted suicide is never protected by the Due Process Clause. This was not held unanimously. For example, Justice Stevens concluded that the law is not facially unconstitutional; but, he wrote, "there are situations in which an interest in hastening death is legitimate. Indeed, not only is that interest sometimes legitimate, I am also convinced that there are times when it is entitled to constitutional protection." And "[a]lthough there is no absolute right to physician-assisted suicide... it [is] clear that some individuals who... are already on the threshold of death have a constitutionally protected interest that may outweigh the State's interest in preserving life at all costs." 142.147.57.252 (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]