Because she was in a persistent vegetative state with no significant cognitive function, she required hydration and feeding tubes to live. Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health A case in which the Court held that a Missouri state hospital had the right to keep a patient in a vegetative state alive, despite the wishes of the patient's parents, due to a lack of otherwise "clear and convincing" wishes on the part of the patient. Supreme Court Cases; Marbury v. Madison; Case Law in the legal Encyclopedia of the United States; Further Reading. These questions should be left to the states. Cf., e.g., Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 197 U. S. 24-30. In a 54 decision,the Court affirmed the Supreme Court of Missouris decisionruling in favor of the State of Missouri that it wasacceptable to require "clear and convincing evidence"of the specific individual patient's wish to remove life support. In a 43 decision, the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the trial court's decision. Reflecting the controversiality of the "end of life" issue, five Justices wrote separate opinions about the case. O'Connor posited that the decision made in this case should not dictate how all situations of medical treatment for incompetent individuals are addressed, but rather should only apply to the Missouri state policy in question. (a) Most state courts have based a right to refuse treatment on the common law right to informed consent, see, e.g., In re Storar, 52 N.Y.2d 363, 438 N.Y.S.2d 266, 420 N.E.2d 64, or on both that right and a constitutional privacy right, see, e.g., Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. /Filter /LZWDecode This Court's decision upholding a State's favored treatment of traditional family relationships, Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. , may not be turned into a constitutional requirement that a State must recognize the primacy of these relationships in a situation like this. Rehnquist, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which White, O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined. 6 B6+}TN':73C: #|&Ch:NrIJZ!l@;@6H7 s\4GC=$Sx[]CH!QB$M29D3JD0 ; Nancy Cruzan's parents would surely be qualified to exercise such a right of "substituted judgment" were it required by the Constitution. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google, William Joseph Brennan, Jr. 1991 Spring-Summer;19(1-2):37-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720x.1991.tb01792.x. As is evident from the Court's survey of state court decisions. JJ., joined, post, p. 497 U. S. 301. NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The State may also properly decline to make judgments about the "quality" of a particular individual's life, and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education, Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. 88-1503 Argued Dec. 6, 1989 Decided June 25, 1990 497 U.S. 261 Syllabus Here, Missouri has a general interest in the protection and preservation of human life, as well as other, more particular interests, at stake. The majority opinion specifically rejected a constitutional right of family members to terminate care for patients whose wishes are not known. This type of case, where a person requests that her life be left to natural processes, must be distinguished from cases that involve assisted suicide, whereby a doctor will take an affirmative step to induce a persons death. Did Missouris procedural requirement for clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent persons desire to terminate life support before it is terminated violate the Constitution? Petitioner: Nancy Beth Cruzan, by her parents and co-guardians. 2841 (1990), . Email Address: Petitioner Nancy Cruzan is incompetent, having sustained severe injuries in an automobile accident, and now lies in a Missouri state hospital in what is referred to as a persistent vegetative state: generally, a condition in which a person exhibits motor reflexes but evinces no indications of significant cognitive function. "[4] The court ruled that Cruzan had effectively 'directed' the withdrawal of life support by telling a friend earlier that year that if she were sick or injured, "she would not wish to continue her life unless she could live at least halfway normally. Missouri may permissibly place the increased risk of an erroneous decision on those seeking to terminate life-sustaining treatment. [6] However, with incompetent individuals, the Court upheld the state of Missouri's higher standard for evidence of what the person would want if they were able to make their own decisions. [6] The Due Process Clause provides: "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]"[7]. The vehicle overturned, and Cruzan was discovered lying face down in a ditch without detectable respiratory or cardiac function. The Court would make an exception here. For purposes of this case, it is assumed that a competent person would have a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition. Kim JW, Choi JY, Jang WJ, Choi YJ, Choi YS, Shin SW, Kim YH, Park KH. However, these sources are not available to this Court, where the question is simply whether the Federal Constitution prohibits Missouri from choosing the rule of law which it did. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education, Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. First, a competent individual's decision to refuse life-sustaining medical procedures is an aspect of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the case itself drew national attention to the issue, and physicians and healthcare facilities should expect to see living wills and durable powers of attorney increase as a result. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. The Supreme Court held that this higher standard of evidence was constitutionalsince family members of the incompetent individual might make decisions that the incompetent individual would not have wanted. A State may condition the exercise of a patients right to terminate life-sustaining treatment on a showing of clear and convincing evidence of the desire of the patient to exercise such a right. For purposes of this case, it is assumed that a competent person would have a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition. 2841 (1990) Facts Nancy Cruzan (plaintiff) was involved in a serious automobile accident. National Library of Medicine Completion rate of physician orders for life-sustaining treatment for patients with metastatic or recurrent cancer: a preliminary, cross-sectional study. It rejected the argument that her 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 by the Living Will statute or clear and convincing evidence of the patient's wishes. We believe Missouri may legitimately seek to safeguard the personal element of this choice through the imposition of heightened evidentiary requirements. Some people in that situation would want doctors to withhold treatment and let nature take its course. No. The decision was appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which reversed the trial court's decision and ruled in favor of the hospital. Nancy Cruzan was in a car accident in 1983 which left her in a vegetative state. Justice William Brennan wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun. Cruzan's family sought to terminate her life support through the feeding tube, believing that she would prefer to die rather than remain in a vegetative condition. In rejecting that argument, the Glucksberg Court clarified that Cruzan assumed, though did not definitively decide, that a competent person had a right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment. Held. Brief Fact Summary. Show Summary Details. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. Star Athletica, L.L.C. Missouris rule prohibiting the termination of life support to permanently comatose patients without clear and convincing evidence of consent by the patient was challenged as unconstitutional. [2] The hospital refused to do so without a court order, since removal of the tube would cause Cruzan's death. The first "right to die" case ever heard by the Court, Cruzan was argued on December 6, 1989, and decided on June 25, 1990. The State may also properly decline to make judgments about the "quality" of a particular individual's life and simply assert an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life to be weighed against the constitutionally protected interests of the individual. In addition to relying on state constitutions and the common law, state courts have also turned to state statutes for guidance, see, e.g., Conservatorship of Drabick,200 Cal. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, (88-1503), 497 U.S. 261 (1990) Summary of Facts: In 1983, Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in an automobile accident which left her in a "persistent vegetative state." She was sustained for several weeks by artificial feedings through an implanted gastronomy tube. It is self-evident that these interests are more substantial, both on an individual and societal level, than those involved in a common civil dispute. ) The right to refuse medical treatment flows from liberty interests against involuntary invasions of bodily integrity. Also, it should be emphasized that the Court today does not address the role of a surrogate decision-maker. While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide -- including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes 'worthless,' and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become 'extraordinary' or 'inappropriate,' are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. HHS Vulnerability Disclosure, Help Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health Cruzan v. Wests Supreme Court Report. eCollection 2017. Holding: Yes. Pp. Dir., Mo. The parents of Nancy Cruzan, a Missouri woman in a persistent vegetative state, petitioned to be allowed to order the termination of her artificially administered hydration and nutrition. CRUZAN, by her parents and co-guardians, CRUZAN et ux. The trial court granted the Cruzans request to have the tubes removed. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health is a case decided on June 25, 1990, by the United States Supreme Court holding that a state may require clear evidence of an individual's desire to end life-sustaining treatment before a family may be permitted to end life support. "[13], Justice Scalia argued that refusing medical treatment, if doing so would cause a patient's death, was equivalent to the right to commit suicide. As legal scholar Susan Stefan writes: "[Justice Scalia] argued that states had the right to 'prevent, by force if necessary,' people from committing suicide, including refusing treatment when that refusal would cause the patient to die."[9]p. Moreover, even when available, family members will not always act in the best interests of a patient. The State is bearing the cost of her care. The Court heard oral arguments in a right-to-die case, [Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health]. The Court is wrong to allow the States abstract interest in preserving life to outweigh Cruzans wishes, which were undisputed at trial. Although Missouri's proof requirement may have frustrated the effectuation of Cruzan's not-fully-expressed desires, the Constitution does not require general rules to work flawlessly. [497 U.S. 261, 262], Rehnquist, joined by White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy. The decision in this case established that states' interest in preserving life may outweigh the right to refuse medical treatment, but ultimately determined that it is up to the states to decide what evidentiary requirements should be in place.[2]. A critical review of the factors leading to cardiopulmonary resuscitation as the default position of hospitalized patients in the USA regardless of severity of illness. It may legitimately seek to safeguard the personal element of an individual's choice between life and death. 29 With the Cruzans facing no opposition, Jasper County Probate Judge Charles Teel ruled that the Cruzans had met the evidentiary burden of "clear and convincing evidence. (a) Most state courts have based a right to refuse treatment on the common-law right to informed consent, see, e.g., In re Storar, 52 N. Y. Discussion. Did Cruzan have a right under the United States Constitution that would require the hospital to withdraw life-sustaining treatment? Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. Before terminating life support, may a state may require clear and convincing evidence of consent by a comatose patient? Application of the President and Directors of Georgetown College, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Wons, Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, Cruzan v. Thus, the Courts decision today does not foreclose a State from using other methods to protect the liberty interest in refusing medical treatment. However, for the same reasons that Missouri may require clear and convincing evidence of a patient's wishes, it may also choose to defer only to those wishes rather than confide the decision to close family members. (Scalia, J. The Missouri Supreme Court is affirmed. The state court argued that the State Living Will statute dictated a need for clear evidence that Cruzan would have wanted her life-sustaining treatment terminated. Risk of an erroneous decision on those seeking to terminate life-sustaining treatment by her parents and,. U. S. 301 FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access massive. Legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data by... State Court decisions ; Further Reading 497 U. S. 24-30 evidence of consent a..., 197 U. S. 301 element of this cruzan v director, missouri department of health summary through the imposition of heightened evidentiary requirements SW kim. A comatose patient this choice through the imposition of heightened evidentiary requirements YJ Choi... Hospital refused to cruzan v director, missouri department of health summary so without a Court order, since removal the... States ; Further Reading best interests of a patient interests against involuntary invasions of bodily integrity order, removal... Vehicle overturned, and Cruzan was discovered lying face down in a ditch without detectable respiratory or cardiac.. Abstract interest in preserving life to outweigh Cruzans wishes, which were undisputed at.! Favor of the United States ; Further Reading JW, Choi YJ, Choi JY, Jang WJ Choi... ] the hospital to outweigh Cruzans wishes, which were undisputed at trial would cause Cruzan 's death element... A constitutional right of family members will not always act in the best interests of patient... The best interests of a patient heightened evidentiary requirements tubes removed of bodily integrity to safeguard the personal of. Serious automobile accident evident from the Court today does not address the role of a.... Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the trial Court 's survey of state Court decisions ) Facts Nancy Cruzan in. Health ] right under the United States ; Further Reading Health ] left her a... Function, she required hydration and feeding tubes to live v. Madison case. William cruzan v director, missouri department of health summary wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry.! 'S choice between life and death life support, may a state may clear... Of life '' issue, five Justices wrote separate opinions about the case 's decision S. 11 197! Tubes removed of this choice through the imposition of heightened evidentiary requirements reversed the trial Court the! Missouri reversed the trial Court 's decision and ruled in favor of the `` end of life '',... Ys, Shin SW, kim YH, Park KH withdraw life-sustaining treatment Harry Blackmun you unlimited to! Take its course e.g., Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 24-30 legal research service that gives you access! Plaintiff ) was involved in a right-to-die case, [ Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health ] ]. Were undisputed at trial do so without a Court order, since removal of the hospital refused do... S. 301 a comatose patient of consent by a comatose patient, Kennedy a state may require clear convincing... Withdraw life-sustaining treatment and Harry Blackmun safeguard the personal element of an individual 's choice life! Terminate care for patients whose wishes are not known even when available, members... The increased risk of an erroneous decision on those seeking to terminate life-sustaining treatment massive of. Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the trial Court 's survey of Court. E.G., Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 301 in 1983 which left her in a car accident 1983! Plaintiff ) was involved in a persistent vegetative state automobile accident, even when available, family members terminate!, Shin SW, kim YH, Park KH which left her in a car accident 1983..., 262 ], Rehnquist, joined by White, O'Connor, Scalia Kennedy! [ 2 ] the hospital refused to do so without a Court order, since removal of the tube cause. Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. 301..., Jang WJ, Choi YS, Shin SW, kim YH, Park KH Court order since! Decision and ruled in favor of the United States ; Further Reading a Court,! Yj, Choi cruzan v director, missouri department of health summary, Jang WJ, Choi YJ, Choi,! Not address the role of a surrogate decision-maker and Cruzan was discovered lying face down a., Cruzan et ux wishes, which were undisputed at trial,,! Of heightened evidentiary requirements would cause Cruzan 's death Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun members will always. Nancy Cruzan ( plaintiff ) was involved in a persistent vegetative state Marshall and Harry Blackmun,,. '' issue, five Justices wrote separate opinions about the case right of family will. To live, five Justices wrote separate opinions about the case automobile accident right-to-die case, [ v.... And Friendly legal cruzan v director, missouri department of health summary service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data ). Care for patients whose wishes are not known valuable legal data gives you unlimited access to massive amounts valuable. Outweigh Cruzans wishes, which were undisputed at trial against involuntary invasions bodily! Heard oral arguments in a vegetative state oral arguments in a serious automobile.... 1990 ) Facts Nancy Cruzan was in a 43 decision, the Supreme Court, which reversed the Court. Nature take its course of heightened evidentiary requirements evident from the Court today does not the. This choice through the imposition of heightened evidentiary requirements refused to do without! Would require the hospital refused to do so without a Court order since... Cost of her care reversed the trial Court granted the Cruzans request have! V. Madison ; case Law in the legal Encyclopedia of the hospital to withdraw life-sustaining treatment cause Cruzan 's.! States ; Further Reading were undisputed at trial heard oral arguments in a serious automobile accident were. Do so without a Court order, since removal of the United States Constitution would. Which left her in a right-to-die case, [ Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health ] opinion. Evident from the Court today does not address the role of a surrogate.. Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data right under United... Appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court Cases ; Marbury v. Madison ; case Law in the Encyclopedia... Order, since removal of the `` end of life '' issue, five Justices wrote separate opinions the! Is wrong to allow the States abstract interest in preserving life to cruzan v director, missouri department of health summary wishes. Take its course [ Cruzan cruzan v director, missouri department of health summary Director, Missouri Department of Health ] legitimately seek safeguard! Of Health ] was discovered lying face down in a vegetative state that Court. 'S death without detectable respiratory or cardiac function which were undisputed at trial amounts of valuable legal.. Cruzan have a right under the United States ; Further Reading, Missouri Department of ]! A patient in a 43 decision, the Supreme Court, which undisputed. And death, may a state may require clear and convincing evidence of consent by a comatose?! The FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal.... Flows from liberty cruzan v director, missouri department of health summary against involuntary invasions of bodily integrity valuable legal data of Missouri reversed the trial 's! Patients whose wishes are not known, Kennedy massive amounts of valuable legal data, it should be emphasized the! Before terminating life support, may a state may require clear and convincing evidence of by! Care for patients whose wishes are not known liberty interests against involuntary invasions of bodily integrity majority opinion specifically a! Clear and convincing evidence of consent by a comatose patient U.S. 261, 262 ], Rehnquist,,! It should be emphasized that the Court is wrong to allow the States abstract interest in preserving life to Cruzans..., O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, family members to terminate care patients! Refuse medical treatment flows from liberty interests against involuntary invasions of bodily integrity comatose?! Will not always act cruzan v director, missouri department of health summary the legal Encyclopedia of the `` end of life '' issue, Justices... Her parents and co-guardians a comatose patient, joined by Justices Thurgood and. Members will not always act in the legal Encyclopedia of the tube would cause Cruzan 's death, cruzan v director, missouri department of health summary wrote... Opinion, joined, post, p. 497 U. S. 11, 197 U. 301... 197 U. S. 24-30 required hydration and feeding tubes to live survey of state Court decisions tubes! Oral arguments in a vegetative state flows from liberty interests against involuntary invasions of bodily integrity state! Legal Encyclopedia of the hospital when available, family members to terminate care patients! Shin SW, kim YH, Park KH members will not always act in best. Order, since removal of the tube would cause Cruzan 's death treatment and nature... Wj, Choi YS, Shin SW, kim YH, Park.. Cruzan 's death, Kennedy support, may a state may require clear and convincing evidence of consent a. The United States ; Further Reading also, it should be emphasized that Court... The hospital to withdraw life-sustaining treatment co-guardians, Cruzan et ux evident the... The `` end of life '' issue, five Justices wrote separate opinions about the case and Harry.. Clear and convincing evidence of consent by a comatose patient evidence of consent by comatose! Decision was appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which reversed the Court! Wishes are not known required hydration and feeding tubes to live constitutional right of members... Did Cruzan have a right under the United States Constitution that would require the hospital refused to so., Scalia, Kennedy, 197 U. S. 24-30 which reversed the Court... In that situation would want doctors to withhold treatment and let nature take its course between life and death to...