home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Complete Home & Office Legal Guide
/
Complete Home and Office Legal Guide (Chestnut) (1993).ISO
/
stat
/
ussct
/
rightdi1.ws
(
.txt
)
< prev
next >
Wrap
WordStar Document
|
1993-08-01
|
59KB
|
1,046 lines
/* Here is the full text of the United State's Supreme Court's
opinion in The Nancy Beth Cruzan case. You may have heard of this
case, in which Nancy's parents sought to stop artificial life
support for their daughter, who was living but had no cognitive
function. This case is the first by the U.S. Supreme Court to
discuss living wills, and we include it since one of the primary
foci of the Home Legal Guide is living wills. In addition this
opinion contains a good discussion of durable power of attorney
laws for healthcare.*/
NANCY BETH CRUZAN, BY HER PARENTS AND
CO-GUARDIANS, LESTER L. CRUZAN, ET UX.,
PETITIONERS v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI
-
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF MISSOURI
[June 25, 1990]
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Nancy Beth Cruzan was rendered incompetent as a
result of severe injuries sustained during an automobile ac-
cident. Co-petitioners Lester and Joyce Cruzan, Nancy's parents
and co-guardians, sought a court order directing the withdrawal
of their daughter's artificial feeding and hydration equipment
after it became apparent that she had virtually no chance of re-
covering her cognitive faculties. The Supreme Court of Missouri
held that because there was no clear and convincing evidence of
Nancy's desire to have life-sustaining treatment withdrawn under
such circumstances, her parents lacked authority to effectuate
such a request. We granted certiorari, 492 U. S. ---- (1989),
and now affirm.
On the night of January 11, 1983, Nancy Cruzan lost control of
her car as she traveled down Elm Road in Jasper County, Missouri.
The vehicle overturned, and Cruzan was discovered lying face down
in a ditch without detectable respiratory or cardiac function.
Paramedics were able to restore her breathing and heartbeat at
the accident site, and she was transported to a hospital in an
unconscious state. An attending neurosurgeon diagnosed her as
having sustained probable cerebral contusions compounded by sig-
nificant anoxia (lack of oxygen). The Missouri trial court in
this case found that permanent brain damage generally results
after 6 minutes in an anoxic state; it was estimated that Cruzan
was deprived of oxygen from 12 to 14 minutes. She remained in a
coma for approximately three weeks and then progressed to an un-
conscious state in which she was able to orally ingest some nu-
trition. In order to ease feeding and further the recovery, sur-
geons implanted a gastrostomy feeding and hydration tube in Cru-
zan with the consent of her then husband. Subsequent rehabilita-
tive efforts proved unavailing. She now lies in a Missouri state
hospital in what is commonly referred to as a persistent vegeta-
tive state: generally, a condition in which a person exhibits mo-
tor reflexes but evinces no indications of significant cognitive
function. (Footnote 1)
Petitioners also adumbrate in their brief a claim based on the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the effect
that Missouri has impermissibly treated incompetent patients dif-
ferently from competent ones, citing the statement in Cleburne v.
--------
Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U. S. 432, 439 (1985), that the
-------- ------ ------ ---
clause is ``essentially a direction that all persons similarly
situated should be treated alike.'' The differences between the
choice made by a competent person to refuse medical treatment,
--
and the choice made for an incompetent person by someone else to
---
refuse medical treatment, are so obviously different that the
State is warranted in establishing rigorous procedures for the
latter class of cases which do not apply to the former class.
The State of Missouri is bearing the cost of her care.
After it had become apparent that Nancy Cruzan had virtually no
chance of regaining her mental faculties her parents asked hospi-
tal employees to terminate the artificial nutrition and hydration
procedures. All agree that such a removal would cause her death.
The employees refused to honor the request without court appro-
val. The parents then sought and received authorization from the
state trial court for termination. The court found that a person
in Nancy's condition had a fundamental right under the State and
Federal Constitutions to refuse or direct the withdrawal of
``death prolonging procedures.'' App. to Pet. for Cert. A99. The
court also found that Nancy's ``expressed thoughts at age
twenty-five in somewhat serious conversation with a housemate
friend that if sick or injured she would not wish to continue her
life unless she could live at least halfway normally suggests
that given her present condition she would not wish to continue
on with her nutrition and hydration.'' Id., at A97-A98.
The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed by a divided vote. The
court recognized a right to refuse treatment embodied in the
common-law doctrine of informed consent, but expressed skepticism
about the application of that doctrine in the circumstances of
this case. Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S. W. 2d 408, 416-417 (Mo.
------ ------
1988) (en banc). The court also declined to read a broad right
of privacy into the State Constitution which would ``support the
right of a person to refuse medical treatment in every cir-
cumstance,'' and expressed doubt as to whether such a right ex-
isted under the United States Constitution. Id., at 417-418. It
--
then decided that the Missouri Living Will statute, Mo. Rev.
Stat. 459.010 et seq. (1986), embodied a state policy strongly
favoring the preservation of life. 760 S. W. 2d, at 419-420.
The court found that Cruzan's statements to her roommate regard-
ing her desire to live or die under certain conditions were ``un-
reliable for the purpose of determining her intent,'' id., at
--
424, ``and thus insufficient to support the co-guardians claim to
exercise substituted judgment on Nancy's behalf.'' Id., at 426.
--
It rejected the argument that Cruzan's parents were entitled to
order the termination of her medical treatment, concluding that
``no person can assume that choice for an incompetent in the absence
of the formalities required under Missouri's Living Will
statutes or the clear and convincing, inherently reliable evi-
dence absent here.'' Id., at 425. The court also expressed its
--
view that ``[b]road policy questions bearing on life and death
are more properly addressed by representative assemblies'' than
judicial bodies. Id., at 426.
--
We granted certiorari to consider the question of whether Cruzan
has a right under the United States Constitution which would re-
quire the hospital to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from her
under these circumstances.
At common law, even the touching of one person by another
without consent and without legal justification was a battery.
See W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton
on Law of Torts 9, pp. 39-42 (5th ed. 1984). Before the turn
of the century, this Court observed that ``[n]o right is held
more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law,
than the right of every individual to the possession and control
of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of
others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.''
Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891).
----- ------- - --