SMITH, APPELLANT,

v. The STATE OF WASHINGTON and Bob Ferguson, Attorney General of Washington, APPELLEES

Unites States Supreme Court.

I. Introduction

The issue presented in the appeal is whether the State of Washington’s murder statute can proscribe a cryogenic company from cryogenically freezing a living human being who is terminally ill when he requests to be cryogenically frozen in order to save his life. Specifically, the appellant asserts that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause guarantees the right to privacy and acting under no undue influence the right to be voluntarily cryogenically frozen by a cryogenic company one month before his death. Appellant accordingly challenges the constitutionality of RCW 9A.32.030, which makes it a felony to plan, intend and cause the death of another person. We conclude that a terminally ill adult has the right to be voluntarily cryogenically frozen because a cryogenic …show more content…
The appellee suggests that allowing the appellant to freeze himself will be the first steps down a slippery path to state sanctioned euthanasia. This is a false claim for two reasons. First, euthanasia is illegal throughout the United States because it is an equivocal notion that often involves a person’s involuntary death. The terminally ill adult choosing cryogenic freezing has done so voluntarily. Second, Washington’s Death with Dignity law permits physician-assisted suicide with certain restrictions while giving the terminally ill adult patients, physicians and others acting in good faith compliance civil and criminal immunity. RCW 70.245.190(1)(a). Thus, there is evidence that the State’s compelling interest in preventing euthanasia is not abrogated by permitting terminally ill adults to freely and voluntarily be cryogenically frozen by a cryogenic company because other terminally ill patients are permitted to choose physician-assisted suicide to hasten their