In the case of United States et al. v. Rutherford et al., 1978, cancer patients and their physicians sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for preventing them from accessing Laetrile, a drug not approved by the FDA but believed by some to have potential anti-cancer properties. The plaintiffs argued that terminally ill patients should be exempted from FDA regulations under the "right of privacy" concept in order to access potentially life-saving drugs like Laetrile without government interference. However, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against this argument stating that Congress had intended for all drugs - whether used by healthy or terminally ill individuals - to meet FDA safety and efficacy standards before they could be marketed or distributed within U.S borders. The court held that there was no constitutional right for a patient to obtain any drug not approved by the FDA regardless of their health condition.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Rutherford, Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall, argued that terminally ill patients should have the right to decide whether or not to use unapproved drugs like Laetrile when conventional treatments are ineffective. They believed that this decision was a matter of personal liberty protected under the Constitution's Due Process Clause and did not agree with majority’s view that FDA regulations apply uniformly regardless of a patient's condition. The dissenting justices also criticized the court for failing to consider evidence showing how these regulations could cause undue suffering in terminal cases where no approved treatment options exist, arguing it is cruel and unusual punishment which violates Eighth Amendment rights.