Question

The case of Terri Schiavo, a woman in a persistent vegetative state, riveted the nation during the first half of 2005. The case centered on the decision of Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband, to remove her feeding tube and her parents' fight to keep her alive. One side of the argument suggests that Terri possessed a fundamental right to die, while the other suggests she had a fundamental right to be given food and water. Both arguments find support in the concept of substantive due process. The former points to the concept that there is a fundamental right to privacy under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, while the latter argues that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that citizens will not be denied life without due process of law. Assume that a case similar to the Schiavo case reaches the U.S. Supreme Court and that you are a justice. How will you rule if both parties argue that their side is supported by the concept of substantive due process? Does one side hold more legal weight than the other? Why or why not? If you find that substantive due process is not implicated in this case, how will you rule? Why?

Answer


*A. Varies