hard and tragic decisions.Two recent high decisions mark a turning point. The New York Court of Appeals in Westchester County on Behalf of Mary O'Connor v. Hall and the Missouri Supreme Court in the Cruzon case; both reversed lower court decisions that authorized the withholding of artificially administered nutrition and hydration from incompetent patients. In each case, the patient's family wished the treatment withheld, believing that course would be what the patient would want. In each case, the trial court accepted the evidence as supporting the family's belief, and establishing that this would be what the patient wished. In each case, that state high court disagreed.From the very outset, there has been the assertion in such cases of privacy right under the Constitution and of a common-law right to refuse treatment. However, the U. S. Supreme Court has, until now in the Cruzon case, declined to accept any case in the area of law for review (Nankivell, 155).The U.S. Supreme Court doesn't even want to discuss the rights of privacy or want to regard the family's wishes and undeniable rights. If the decision is to be based on the patient's wishes, it is reasonable for the state to require that the evidence of those wishes be clear, convincing and inherently reliable. The problem is not one of principle; it is one of application and result. That the state has an unqualified interest in life is similarly fine in principle. It is not for the state to make quality of life decisions. It is one thing for an individual to make the decision for his or her own quality of life. It is entirely another for the state to decide which people is worthy to live.The issue is as whether it is appropriate for the courts and guardians in the exercise of state-delegated, parens patriae, power, to take into account the burden to the individual of the treatment at issue when the individual is so disabled to make these decisions. Again, this is more likely to ...
