Talk:Washington v. Glucksberg

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)