158 Alan Sokobin
Supreme Court , but then concluded,“[i]f the Supreme Court wants to address the right-to-die issue without invoking its abortion precedents, Judge Calabresi ’s analysis shows the way. Even if the Justices decide not to take these two cases, the issue is certain to come back to them—again and again.
The Supreme Court responded to the challenge offered by the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals by stepping into the breach. The Court , however, did not close the breach. In Washington v. Glucksberg,*®* Chief Justice Rehnquist 's unanimous opinion for the Court was forthright and unequivocal.“The question presented in this case is whether Washington's prohibition against‘caus(ing)’ or‘aid(ing)’ a suicide offends the 14" Amend ment to the United States Constitution . We hold that it does
77265
7263
not.”?% Concurring opinions, however, would appear to leave a legal door ajar for states to craft changes in the statutes as well as future claims that there is a right to such an action. Justice Souter echoed the opinion of Judge Calabresi ’s concurrence in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, Quill v. Vacco,*“[w]hile I do not decide for all time that respondents’ claim should not be recognized, I acknowledge the legislative institutional competence as the better one to deal with that claim at this time.”
In responding to the similar issues presented in Vacco v. Quill*® Chief Justice Rehnquist , again writing for a unanimous Court, reiterated the position that“the question presented by this case is whether New York 's prohibition on assisting suicide therefore violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amend
17269
ment. We hold that it does not.
Justice O'Connor hesitated to close the door on the issue. “But respondents urge us to address the narrower question whether a mentally competent person who is experiencing great suffering has a constitutionally cognizable interest in controlling the circumstances of his or her imminent death. I see no need to reach that question in the context of the facial challenges to the New York and Washington laws at issue here.”?"
Justice Breyer practically invited new legislation in his concurring opinion.
The Court describes it[physician assisted euthanasia] as a‘right to commit suicide with another’s assistance.” But I would not reject the respondents’ claim without considering a different formulation, for which our legal tradition may provide greater support. That formulation would use words roughly like a‘right:to die with dig