Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implications of the Constitutional Right of Privacy for the Control of Drugs

An Introduction

  • Chapter
Feeling Good and Doing Better

Part of the book series: Contemporary Issues in Biomedicine, Ethics, and Society ((CIBES))

Abstract

Probably no Constitutional issue has created as much interest in academic circles over the past several years as has the development of the Constitutional right of privacy and, with the exception of the debate over affirmative action, no issue has led to such a volume of both judicial and scholarly writing. There are now several excellent descriptions, analyses, and histories of the right of privacy.1 The purpose of this survey presentation is to evaluate the development of the Constitutional right of privacy and those social policies that must underlie it in order to determine how the United States Supreme Court might apply the right of privacy to drug prohibitions and regulations and what implications the underlying social policies ought to have for our drug laws.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Notes

  1. See Corwin, The “Higher Law” Background of American Constitutional Law, 42 Harv. L. Rev. 149 (1928); Gerety, Redefining Privacy, 12 Harv. Civ. Rts.—Civ. Lib. L. Rev. 233 (1977); Reiman, Privacy, Intimacy, and Personhood, 6 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 26 (1976); Thomson, The Right to Privacy, 4 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 295 (1975); Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890); Comment, A Taxonomy of Privacy: Repose, Sanctuary, and Intimate Decision, 64 Cal. L. Rev. 1447 (1976); Gavison, Privacy and the Limits of Law, 89 Yale L. J. 421 (1980); Westin, Privacy and Freedom(1967); Glancy, The Invention of the Right to Privacy, 21 Ariz. L. Rev. 1 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Warren and Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Id. at 205.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891).

    Google Scholar 

  5. US Constitution, Amendment XIV.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399 (1923).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Id. at 402.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510 (1925).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510, 535 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 400 (1923).

    Google Scholar 

  10. See Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905).

    Google Scholar 

  11. See Adkins v. Childrens Hospital, 261 US 525 (1913).

    Google Scholar 

  12. See Coppage v. Kansas, 236 US 1 (1915).

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Gunther, Constitutional Law 502 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Id. at 484.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Id. at 484.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Id. at 485–486.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Id. at 486.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Id. at 488. Justice Goldberg wrote the concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan joined.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Id. at 499–502.

    Google Scholar 

  21. The phrase was first used by Justice Cardozo to define that which was included within the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 US 319, 325 (1937).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Poe v. Ullman, 367 US 497 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Id. at 542.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 510 (1965) (Black, J., dissenting).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 US 438 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Id. at 453.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 US 557 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Doe v. Bolton, 410 US 179 (1973); Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, 152 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Id. at 159.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Doe v. Bolton, 410 US 179, 211 (1973) (Douglas, J., concurring).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Id. at 213.

    Google Scholar 

  34. The Court recently reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 51 USLW 4767 (US, June 15, 1983). Congress had attempted to exert its power over abortion. One “Right to Life” Amendment, SJR 3, failed passage 49 to 50 in June, 1983. Other Right to Life Amendments have been introduced (SJR 8, 9) and are awaiting action.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See, e.g., H.L. v. Matheson, 450 US 393 (1981); Bellotti v. Baird, 443 US 622 (1979); Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 US 52 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297 (1980); Beal v. Doe, 432 US 438 (1977); Maher v. Roe, 432 US 464 (1977); Poelker v. Doe, 432 US 519 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Whalen v. Roe, 429 US 589 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Id. at 594.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Id. at 600.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Id. at 603.

    Google Scholar 

  42. United States v. Rutherford, 422 US 544 (1979). Subsequently, at least one federal court has upheld a challenge to a statute designed to deny unconventional medical treatment to those seeking it. In And: ews v. Ballard, 498 F. Supp 1038 (SD, Tex. 1980), the court held that a patient had the right to obtain accupuncture from other than a physician, contrary to the Texas Medical Practice Act. See also, Laissez Faire in the Medical Marketplace—Recognition of a Constitutional Right to Unconventional Medical Treatment: Andrews v. Ballard, 18 New Eng. L. Rev. 149 (1982); The Uncertain Application of the Right of Privacy in Personal Medical Decisions: The Laetrile Cases, 42 Ohio St. L. J. 523 (1981); Ainsworth and Hall, Laetrile: May the State Intervene on Behalf of a Minor? 30 U. Kan. L. Rev. 409 (1982); and Volzer, Laetrile and The Privacy Right in Decisional Responsibility, 26 Med. Trial Tech. Q. 395 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rutherford v. United States, 438 F. Supp. 1287 (WD, Okla. 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Rutherford v. United States, 582 F.2d 1234 (10th Cir. 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  45. United States v. Rutherford, 442 US 544 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rutherford v. United States, 616 F.2d 455 (10th Cir. 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rutherford v. United States, 449 US 937 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Privitera v. California, 444 US 949 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  49. People v. Privitera, 74 Cal. App. 3d 936, 141 Cal. Rptr. 764 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Id. at 784.

    Google Scholar 

  51. People v. Privitera, 23 Cal. 3d 697, 591 P.2d 919, 153 Cal. Rptr. 431 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  52. See, e. g., Meulders-Klein, The Right Over One’s Own Body: It s Scope and Limits in Comparative Law, 6 B.C. Int’l. & Comp. L. Rev. 29 (1983); Goldberg, “Interpretations” of “Due Process of Law”—A Study in Futility, 13 Pac. L. J. 365 (1982); Dworkin, “Natural” Law Revisited, 34 U. Fla. L. Rev. 165 (1982); Ross, A Natural Rights Basis for Sub- stantive Due Process of Law in US Jurisprudence, 2 Univ. Human Rights 61 (1980); and Gavison, Positivism and the Limits of Jurispru- dence: A Modern Round, 91 Yale L. J. 1250 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438, 478 (1928).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 US 557, 565–566 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 US 49, 67–68 (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Rogers v. Okin, 478 F. Supp. 1342, 1367 (D. Mass. 1979). For subsequent history of this case, see fn. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Kaimowitz v. Department of Mental Health, Civ. No. 73–19434-AW (Mich. Cir. Ct. Wayne Cty., July 10, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Rogers v. Okin, 478 F. Supp. 1342, 1367 (D. Mass. 1979). The Court of Appeals criticized the district court for its simplistic approach, but generally agreed that drugs should not be forceably administered except under certain conditions. The Court of Appeals found that the right to refuse antipsychotic drugs had its origins in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 634 F.2d 650 (1st Cir. 1980). The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision for essentially procedural reasons in Mills v. Rogers, 102 S. Ct. 2442 (1982). The Supreme Court questioned whether the state’s protection of the individual’s interest was broader than the protection afforded by the United States Constitution. See also Rennie v. Klein, 653 F.2d 836 (3rd Cir. 1981), A Mental Patient’s Right to Refuse Antipsychotic Drugs: A Constitutional Right Needing Protection, 57 Notre Dame L. Rev. 406 (1981); and Symonds, Mental Patients’ Right to Refuse Drugs: Involuntary Medication as Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 7 Hastings Const. L.Q. 701 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  59. E. Goffman, Asylums(1961).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Griswold v. Connecticut 381 US 479 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 US 557 (1969).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Id. at 565.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ravin v. State 537 P.2d 494 (Alaska 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Id. at 503.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Parham v. J. R., 442 US 584 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  66. H. L. v. Matheson, 450 US 393 (1981); Bellotti v. Baird, 443 US 622 (1979); Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 US 52 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 US 622, 633–34 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Gunther, Constitutional Law 671 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Id. at 670–671.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Id. at 671.

    Google Scholar 

  71. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 US 144 (1938).

    Google Scholar 

  72. See Laetrile: The Making of a Myth, HEW Pub. No. (FDA) 77–3031; Toxicity of Laetrile, FDA Drug Bulletin 7 (5) (Nov.-Dec. 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  73. See e.g., State v. Craig, 19 Ohio App. 2d 29, 249 N.E. 2d 75 (1969); State v. Odegaard, 165 N.W. 2d 677 (N.D. 1969); State v. Albertson, 93 Idaho 64, 470 P.2d 300 (1970); State v. Lombard, 241 A.2d 625 (R.I. 1968); and Simon v. Sargent, 346 F. Supp. 277 (D. Mass. 1972), aff’d mem., 409 US 1020 (1972). The Ohio helmet law upheld in Craig was repealed in part in 1978 to eliminate the helmet requirement except for those under 18. For an examination of helmet laws, see Helmetless Motorcyclists-Easy Riders Facing Hard Facts: The Rise of the “Motorcycle Helmet Defense,” 41 Ohio St. L. J. 233 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  74. See, e.g., Ex Parte Hilley, 405 So. 2d 708 (Ala. 1981); In Re Lucille Boyd, 403 A.2d 744 (DC Ct. App. 1979); and Hamilton v. McAuliffe, 277 Md. 336, 353 A.2d 634 (Ct. App. 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Tribe, American Constitutional Law (1978), 938–941.

    Google Scholar 

  76. See note 73, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  77. See, e.g., Manual Enterprises v. Day, 370 US 478 (1962); Hearn v. Short, 327 F. Supp. 33 (S.D. Texas 1971); and Auginblick v. US, 206 Ct. Cl. 74, 509 F. 2d 1157 (1975). See also, Commonwealth v. Bonadio, 490 Pa. 91, 415 A.2d 47 (1980); People v. Onofre, 51 NY 2d 476, 415 N.E. 2d 936 (1980), cert. denied, 101 S. Ct. 2323 (1981); Commonwealth v. Bonadio: Voluntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse—A Comparative Analysis, 43 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 253 (1981); and Sexual Morality and the Constitution: People v. Onofre, 46 Albany L. Rev. (1981). In Onofre and Bonadio, the courts struck down sodomy statutes as unconstitutional.

    Google Scholar 

  78. See, e.g., H. R. Rep. No. 2464, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., enumerating the purposes of the Drug Amendments of 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  79. This argument has also been advanced to support deprogramming of those in religious cults. See, Delgado, Religious Totalism as Slavery, 9 NYU Rev. Law and Soc. Change 51 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Quoted in Tribe at 817.

    Google Scholar 

  81. See note 73, supra.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 US 622 (1979); Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 US 52 (1976); H. L. v. Matheson, 450 US 393 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  83. See, People v. Woody, 61 Cal. 2d 716, 394 P.2d 813, 40 Cal. Rptr. 69 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Gunther, Constitutional Law 1585 (1980). See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296 (1940); and Reynolds v. United States, 98 US 145 (1878).

    Google Scholar 

  85. People v. Woody, 61 Cal. 2d 716, —, 394 P.2d 813, 816–818, 40 Cal. Rptr. 69, 72–74 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  86. United States v. Kuch, 288 F. Supp. 439 (D.D.C. 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Id.

    Google Scholar 

  88. In Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 US 88 (1940), the Court invalidated on free speech grounds an Alabama law prohibiting picketing. However, the Court has distinguished speech from conduct, and its decisions on “symbolic speech” are inconsistent. Compare Cox v. Louisiana, 379 US 559 (1965) with Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 US 299 (1963). See generally, Tribe, supra, at 598–601.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Tribe, supra, 940–941.

    Google Scholar 

  90. See Railway Express Agency v. New York, 336 US 106 (1949).

    Google Scholar 

  91. See, e.g., California v. La Rue, 409 US 109 (1972); Lar kin v. Grendels’ Den, Inc., 51 USLW 4025 (1982); Women’s Liberation Union of Rhode Island v. Israel, 379 F. Supp. 44 (D.R.I. 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  92. California v. La Rue, 409 US 109 (1972). But see Craig v. Boren, 429 US 190 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Robert Schwartz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences, The Hastings Center, Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, USA

    Thomas H. Murray

  2. The Hastings Center, Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, USA

    Willard Gaylin

  3. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA

    Ruth Macklin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1984 The Humana Press Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schwartz, R. (1984). Implications of the Constitutional Right of Privacy for the Control of Drugs. In: Murray, T.H., Gaylin, W., Macklin, R. (eds) Feeling Good and Doing Better. Contemporary Issues in Biomedicine, Ethics, and Society. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5168-2_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5168-2_8

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-9594-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-5168-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation