The U.S. Supreme Court case Washington v. Glucksberg (1996) revolved around the issue of physician-assisted suicide and whether it was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as a fundamental liberty interest. Dr. Harold Glucksberg, along with other physicians, terminally ill patients, and a nonprofit organization, challenged Washington State's ban on assisted suicide arguing that it violated their constitutional rights to personal autonomy and bodily integrity in medical decisions including end-of-life situations. However, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the state law banning physician-assisted suicide by ruling that there is no constitutionally-protected right to die or receive assistance in dying from a doctor. The court reasoned that legalizing such an act could lead to involuntary euthanasia or healthcare rationing if not properly regulated; hence its prohibition served legitimate government interests in protecting life and preserving ethical standards within medicine.

In the dissenting opinion for Washington v. Glucksberg, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold Washington State's ban on physician-assisted suicide was overly broad and failed to consider individual circumstances. He contended that while there may be compelling reasons to prevent abuses of assisted suicide, these concerns should not automatically override a competent adult’s private decision to end their life in certain situations. Stevens suggested that this right could potentially fall under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause as an aspect of personal liberty. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for relying too heavily on historical attitudes towards suicide rather than considering contemporary ethical and medical perspectives which increasingly recognize a patient's autonomy over their own body and life decisions.