The Supreme Court ruled that freezing oneself before death is not constitutionally protected and that Washington's Death with Dignity Act is unconstitutional. The petitioner, a terminally ill 19-year-old, wanted to freeze himself before death in hopes of future resuscitation, but the state argued this would be legally considered murder. While acknowledging an individual's right to privacy and liberty, the Court determined the state has a compelling interest to protect vulnerable citizens and uphold equal protection under the law. The opinion found legal and ethical issues with physician-assisted suicide and premortem freezing that could undermine the doctor-patient relationship and potentially lead to abuse.

1. Keith Rakes POSC 452/Final Draft
1
Smith v. Washington (2013)
Justice RAKES delivers the opinion of the court:
The case that is brought to us is very unique and interesting to say the least. The
petitioner is a19 year old college student who has a terminal illness and diagnosed with six
months to live. One month before his assumed death, he wants to be “frozen” by a cryogenics
company, in hopes of being brought back to life when a cure for his illness is discovered. The
respondent, states that the act of freezing a human being is legally murder, and has a compelling
state interest to protect not only the petitioner, but also the citizens of Washington (Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). The petitioner states that he is protected by the
First Amendment’s right to privacy, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The facts of the case has lead us to look at the constitutionality of a person’s right to “freeze”
themselves, an addition to the right to die cases that have been presented to us in previous years.
Yet, this case has absolutely nothing to do with right to die, but for a person to freeze themselves
before death can occur, is it protected by the First amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of
the Constitution? The court believes that it is not.
According to American history, all, naturalized Americans have fundamental rights, and
liberties, that cannot be infringed by the federal government. This is also true in state
governments as they have modeled there Constitution’s on the federal level. Yet, at times, they
have made laws that did infringe on society (i.e. Jim Crow laws of the south), but were
eventually overturned. Yet, the right to die, or assisted-suicide as it is also known, is relatively
new in our society and this court has ruled on, at least on one case see Washington v.
Glucksberg, 1997. Yet, those were different times, and the citizens of Washington have changed
their way of thinking, on approving a Death with Dignity Law in 2008. This law allowed those

2. Keith Rakes POSC 452/Final Draft
2
with a terminal illness, who are mentally competent may request physician-assisted suicide on
grounds that this is what the patient wants, and the respected family concurs. In addition to
Oregon’s passing of a similar law, they are the only two states in the Union to allow physician-
assisted suicide. Therefore, to establish if the present case has constitutionality in front of us, we
must look at the following: First Amendment right to privacy, the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, set against the compelling state interest of Washington, and the Equal
Protection Clause, also of the Fourteenth Amendment. We will also have to take a reasonable
look at Washington’s Death with Dignity Law of 2008, and determine its constitutionality as
well.
The First Amendment is a critical part of our Constitution. It covers the basic rights of the
people that were so important in 1789 and today: freedom of speech, the press, to assemble, and
to petition the government for grievances. Two other rights, privacy and travel, were later
discovered by this Court. The case presented to us “concerns a relationship lying within the zone
of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees” Griswold v. Connecticut
381, U.S. 479. We must also take in the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment that assures that the rights of life, liberty, and property shall not be
deprived by any State, “nor any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
An area that is heavily sacred to all citizens is that of their personal freedoms. We hold that the
legislatures will seek a right course of action in making laws protecting freedoms, or in some
cases, granting new ones. Finding freedoms within the Constitution, that is not written is a tricky
business, and something this court tries to avoid. But in regards to the right to privacy, this “is
the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom” Palko v.
Connecticut, 302, U.S. 327. Even though this court has declared the right to privacy as a

3. Keith Rakes POSC 452/Final Draft
3
fundamental right, we must look at this right from a moral and cultural view, and we must ask a
question: can an adult, who knows they’re going to die, “freeze” themselves before death occurs?
To answer this question, we must look at the constitutionality of other, similar cases, and
additional evidence that we feel is important in our opinion.
We understand that liberty is crucial for the citizens of the United States, and we also
know that the right to privacy is important as well. Many states have condemned the right to die
laws nationwide. Many terminally ill patients have brought suit against their State of residence to
allow them the liberty to, either die their own way, or be “frozen” for a possible cure later. The
California Supreme Court held that “A person with an incurable brain disease, which will result
in a persistent vegetative state and ultimately death, does not have a constitutional right to either
premortem cryogenic suspension or a state-assisted suicide, nor does a third person have a
constitutional right to aid, advise, or encourage such as suicide” Donaldson v. Van De Kamp,
Issues in Law and Medicine 8, no. 1: 105. Legal Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed Nov. 21,
2013). We believe that, with the petitioner’s current status and failing health that he might
possibly go into a persistent vegetative state sometime before death occurs, and we have ruled on
this item as well.
Many cases have been brought to us concerning a person, or the State, making a decision
for an individual in a persistent vegetative state. Our ruling on Cruzan supported the state when
making decisions for a person in this manner Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep. of Public Health,
497, U.S. 261 (1990). To this, we stick by that ruling and do not plan on changing it here.
In 2008, Washington citizens voted for, and adopted a Death with Dignity Act. This Act
granted that any state citizen, who is terminally ill, can request (both oral and written) to
physicians for physician-assisted suicide. The petitioner has a terminal form of leukemia and has

4. Keith Rakes POSC 452/Final Draft
4
been diagnosed with six months to live. According to the Act, he meets all the following criteria
if he wanted to go this route: a. the patient must be an adult (18 or over) and a resident of the
state of Washington, b. the patient must be mentally competent, verified by two physicians (or
referred to a mental health evaluation), c. the patient must be terminally ill with less than six
months to live, verified by two physicians. There are also request that the patient must make with
the physicians and paperwork to be filled out by witnesses before a patient receives the medicine
to end their lives.
The Act leaves out the mental health aspect of the law in that “the empirical facts reveal
that the risk of harm to terminally ill patients is far from speculative: (1) persons with a terminal
disease are at a greatly increased risk for depression; (2) depression carries with it a serious risk
of becoming suicidal; and (3) primary care physicians regularly miss suicidal depression in their
own patients Lee v. State of Oregon [(9th
cir. 1996) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-
circuit/1229763.html, accessed December 4, 2013)]. Additionally, with the advancement in
medicine, a terminally ill patient can live longer than the presupposed diagnosis of six months to
live. The protection of life is undoubtedly a state interest and must be protected, and any
assumed right to assisted suicide is just that, an assumed right. We have decided that the asserted
“right” to assistance in committing suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the
Due Process Clause Washington v. Glucksberg, 527, U.S. 702, (1997).Therefore, the
Washington Death with Dignity law cannot continue as is.
Unlike Washington and Oregon, California citizens voted against a similar Death with
Dignity law in 1992, but do allow a cryogenic’s company to conduct business in that state, and
nationwide. As the petitioner wants to be “frozen” before his assumed death, and that we don’t
know exactly which company he made an agreement with, we will look at one with a national

5. Keith Rakes POSC 452/Final Draft
5
reputation. The company, ALCOR Life Extension Foundation, philosophy is that life can be
extended by a process called vitrification. Vitrification, unlike freezing, is when a chemical is
injected into a human body that stops all cell movement (-120 degrees). This allows major
organs to structurally preserve without freezing. The goal of the company is to bring patients
back to life, once the technology has greatly improved, and a cure is submitted to the patient.
But, there are laws that the company must follow to remain in business. For a patient to submit to
a cryonics lab, they must legally die. It’s against the law to actively make someone die, even if
they wish it upon themselves and death must be declared by an independent authority once the
heart has stopped. Another issue is that it is unknown whether the technology will improve
enough for the company to reach its goal of bringing patients back to life. We find that ALCOR
has not broken any laws, and can remain in business (ALCOR Life Extension Foundation,
http://www.alcor.org/Library/index.html#legal, accessed November 20, 2013).
Washington state has a compelling state interest in protecting the citizens of its state,
especially those who are considered the most vulnerable (elderly, poor, children, etc.). By
allowing a person to “freeze” themselves by a physician, or anyone else who would be qualified
to perform this service, before their assumed death would “undermine the trust that is essential to
the doctor patient relationship by blurring the time-honored line between healing and harming”
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521, U.S. 702 (1997). Also, the state has a compelling state interest
to protect “terminally ill, disabled, and elderly people… and that a seriously disabled person’s
suicidal impulses should be interpreted and treated the same way as anyone else’s” Washington
v. Glucksberg, 521, U.S. 702 (1997). To this, Washington does have a special interest in
protecting its citizens from harming themselves.

6. Keith Rakes POSC 452/Final Draft
6
Additionally, Washington does have a special interest in the equal protection of its
citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that “no[r] shall any state deprive any person
life, liberty, or property… nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws” Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution. To this, the sole purpose of the government
of Washington is to create laws to protect the lives of its citizens. The Washington Death with
Dignity Law barely passed with a slim majority, viewing that the entire population did not agree
with it. The state attorney general’s decision on protecting this individual from a premortem
death is well within the compelling state interest of the State. Additionally, Washington’s equal
protection argument is sound and clear.
The Death with Dignity Law of 2008 raises serious issues. By allowing a person
to die by physician assisted suicide, or allowing a person to freeze themselves before their
assumed death may lead to others to seek the same types of assistance. By this happening, it
causes the state murder rate to escalate to high levels. It would also lead to preplanned or false
murders, if people had themselves killed on false pretenses. Mainly, this would lead to out of
control euthanasia and anarchy. The Washington Death with Dignity Law, clearly, does not take
into account the health of a patient, emotional or physical. It does not take into account if the
patient decides to receive medical help prior to a six month to live diagnosis. The “six month to
live” diagnosis must be considered as a last resort diagnosis. Yet, the petitioner wants to “freeze”
himself premortem. This cannot be allowed due to Washington’s vow to protect life, liberty and
property. Also, the cryogenics company (either ALCOR or another company) must follow
current law in allowing a person to die before their respected process could begin. By taking
someone’s life premortem could lead to an out of control murder rate nationwide.

7. Keith Rakes POSC 452/Final Draft
7
To combat this, Washington must take into account all the moral issues this law brings
up. There are some ways to go about this: 1. The state could create a new law that a. adds the
emotional health of the patient; b. make it that it can only be provided by state supported
physicians, and that the medicines have to be proscribed by one physician and concurred by the
other, c. the mental health of the patient must be examined and includes a series of evaluations
by state supported psychologists and independent psychologists; d. appropriate action must be
accounted for if suicidal depression is determined and diagnosed. If this is deemed as
unattainable by the government, then they should remove to other business. Additionally, if a
terminally ill patient wants to “freeze” themselves before an assumed death, the parties involved
shall be held accountable in a court of law.
We do consider that the idea of “freezing” one’s self for a future cure may be someone’s
“right”, yet this assumption is constitutionally not a right. We do not condone the patient’s
interest in this procedure, but it must be done within the confines of the law. Therefore, the
petitioner’s case of “freezing” himself one month before his assumed death, because he feels it’s
his right to privacy, is frivolous. Washington’s enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause as a
state interest is viable. Yet, we also disagree with Washington State’s current law on physician-
assisted suicide, in that it does violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Washington’s Death with Dignity Act is hereby struck down, and the decision of the
district court is Affirmed.
It is so ordered.