Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health case brief summary
497 U.S. 261 (1990)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioners, parents suing on their behalf and on behalf of their daughter, appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri which denied their petition for a court order directing the withdrawal of their daughter's artificial feeding and hydration equipment.
OVERVIEW: Petitioners, parents suing on their behalf and on behalf of their daughter, requested a court order directing the withdrawal of their daughter's artificial feeding and hydration equipment after she was rendered vegetative in an auto accident.
HOLDING:
The appellate court denied their petition holding that petitioners lacked authority to effectuate the request because there was no clear and convincing evidence of the daughter's desire to have life-sustaining treatment withdrawn as required under the Missouri Living Will statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 459.010 et seq. (1986). The United States Supreme Court affirmed.
ANALYSIS:
-The Supreme Court said that the Due Process Clause, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, did not require the state to repose judgment on matters concerning the right to refuse treatment with anyone but the patient herself.
-The Court held that a state could choose to defer only to the patient's wishes rather than confide the decision to close family members.
OUTCOME: The Court affirmed the judgment denying a court order directing the withdrawal of petitioners' daughter's artificial feeding and hydration equipment because the U.S. Constitution did not require the state to repose judgment on matters concerning the right to refuse treatment with anyone but the patient herself.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
497 U.S. 261 (1990)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioners, parents suing on their behalf and on behalf of their daughter, appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri which denied their petition for a court order directing the withdrawal of their daughter's artificial feeding and hydration equipment.
OVERVIEW: Petitioners, parents suing on their behalf and on behalf of their daughter, requested a court order directing the withdrawal of their daughter's artificial feeding and hydration equipment after she was rendered vegetative in an auto accident.
HOLDING:
The appellate court denied their petition holding that petitioners lacked authority to effectuate the request because there was no clear and convincing evidence of the daughter's desire to have life-sustaining treatment withdrawn as required under the Missouri Living Will statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 459.010 et seq. (1986). The United States Supreme Court affirmed.
ANALYSIS:
-The Supreme Court said that the Due Process Clause, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, did not require the state to repose judgment on matters concerning the right to refuse treatment with anyone but the patient herself.
-The Court held that a state could choose to defer only to the patient's wishes rather than confide the decision to close family members.
OUTCOME: The Court affirmed the judgment denying a court order directing the withdrawal of petitioners' daughter's artificial feeding and hydration equipment because the U.S. Constitution did not require the state to repose judgment on matters concerning the right to refuse treatment with anyone but the patient herself.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment