Opinion ID: 2514118
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The applicable balancing test

Text: This court has often emphasized the importance of personal autonomy under our constitution. [9] Yet we have also recognized that the rights to privacy and liberty are neither absolute nor comprehensivethat their limits depend on a balance of interests. [10] The nature of the balance varies with the importance of the rights actually infringed. [11] When the state encroaches on fundamental aspects of the rights to privacy or liberty, it must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest and the absence of a less restrictive means to advance that interest. [12] But [w]hen, on the other hand, governmental action interferes with an individual's freedom in an area that is not characterized as fundamental, a less stringent test is ordinarily applied. [13] To justify interference with non-fundamental aspects of privacy and liberty, the state must show a legitimate interest and a close and substantial relationship between its interest and its chosen means of advancing that interest. [14] Sampson and Doe contend that application of the manslaughter statute to physician-assisted suicide fails to withstand scrutiny under either of these standards.