WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, p. 655 (1997).

• What regulation is being challenged?
• Does it affect a "fundamental right"?
• How does this case differ from Cruzan, the withdrawal-of-life-support case discussed in the various Glucksberg opinions?
• Does a patient have a "right to die"?
• Was the regulation in Cruzan inconsistent with a "right to die"? How does one know when a patient who is now comatose has consciously exercised the "right to die"?
• Is there a difference between the "right to die" and
• the "right to commit suicide"?
• the "right to commit suicide with another's assistance"?
• the "right to die with dignity"?
• How does this case differ from the right to an abortion (Roe/Casey), discussed in the various Glucksberg opinions?
• What burden of justification does the Glucksberg regulation have to meet?
• What interests does the regulation serve?
• Those of the patient? What are they?
• Personal autonomy?
• Staying alive?
• Avoiding intolerable pain?
• Those of the state? What are they?
• Preserving life?
• Avoiding errors in determining a patient's true wishes?
• Those of the medical profession? What are they?
• In avoiding responsibility for a death?
• In avoiding liability for acceding to the patient's wishes?
• In doing what is best for the patient?
• How does Justice O'Connor's rationale differ from Chief Justice Rehnquist's?
• Is there a crucial difference between permitting a physician to prescribe and administer ultimately lethal palliatives (morphine or other pain medication), and permitting "physician-assisted suicide"?
• How does Rehnquist's opinion impact on this difference?
• How does Justice Souter’s rationale differ from the others?
• does DP forbid all arbitrary or irrational governmental acts?
• does DP forbid all unreasonable governmental acts?