In re Conroy case brief summary
486 A.2d 1209 (1985)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff guardian, nephew of an incompetent institutionalized patient, sought to remove a nasogastric feeding tube, the primary conduit for nutrients, from his ward, an elderly woman with serious and irreversible physical and mental impairments. Patient's guardian ad litem opposed the motion. The trial court granted plaintiff permission to remove the tube because the patient's intellectual functioning had been permanently reduced and her life had become impossibly burdensome. The guardian ad litem appealed but while the appeal was pending the patient died. The superior court decided, nevertheless, to resolve the meritorious issues.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the superior court's judgment, finding that if the patient were competent to make determination she would have chosen to have her nasogastric tube withdrawn and that her freedom from nonconsensual invasion of her bodily integrity would outweigh any state interest in preserving life. The court stated that rejecting artificial feeding would not constitute attempted suicide and removal of the tube would not be a public hazard.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
486 A.2d 1209 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff guardian
challenged a decision of the Superior Court (New Jersey), which
reversed the trial court's decision to grant plaintiff the permission
to remove the nasogastric feeding tube, the primary conduit for
nutrients, from his ward, an elderly bedridden woman in a nursing
home with serious and irreversible physical and mental impairments.
The superior court held that withdrawal of the tube would be
tantamount to killing the patient.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff guardian, nephew of an incompetent institutionalized patient, sought to remove a nasogastric feeding tube, the primary conduit for nutrients, from his ward, an elderly woman with serious and irreversible physical and mental impairments. Patient's guardian ad litem opposed the motion. The trial court granted plaintiff permission to remove the tube because the patient's intellectual functioning had been permanently reduced and her life had become impossibly burdensome. The guardian ad litem appealed but while the appeal was pending the patient died. The superior court decided, nevertheless, to resolve the meritorious issues.
DISCUSSION
- The superior court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that a guardian's decision could never be used to withhold nourishment from an incompetent patient who was not brain dead or vegetative and whose death was not irreversibly imminent.
- On appeal, the court reversed the superior court's judgment, finding that if the patient were competent to choose for herself she would have chosen to have the tube withdrawn.
- The court stated that the patient's choice of nonconsensual invasion would have outweighed any state interest in preserving life.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the superior court's judgment, finding that if the patient were competent to make determination she would have chosen to have her nasogastric tube withdrawn and that her freedom from nonconsensual invasion of her bodily integrity would outweigh any state interest in preserving life. The court stated that rejecting artificial feeding would not constitute attempted suicide and removal of the tube would not be a public hazard.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment