http://www.feministsforlife.org/taf/1995/winter/wiltoliv.htm
The American Feminist
The American Feminist, Winter 1995/1996
The Will to Live
When Marjorie Nighbert entered a nursing home after having a stroke, she did not expect to be starved to death, but that is what happened when she became a victim of her own "wishes."
Like many people, she did not want her life to be prolonged when death was imminent. So Nighbert created a durable power of attorney (DPA), in which she gave her brother control over medical decisions in case she could not make them for herself. And according to the family lawyer, Nighbert said she did not want a feeding tube if she became terminally ill.
When Nighbert fell ill the nursing home followed the orders of the DPA and denied her food and water for two weeks. But then something unexpected happened: She asked to be fed. A court battle ensued, and the court ultimately upheld the nursing home's decision to deny Nighbert food and water. According to the judge, Nighbert was not competent to ask for food, and to give her food would constitute "extraordinary means."
Nighbert died on April 6, 1995.
In recent years we have heard a lot about the "right to die." Many organizations, such as Choice in Dying, and even President Clinton, promote living wills as a way for people to control when and how they will die. Yet, as Nighbert's story illustrates, nothing could be further from the truth: Many people sign living wills without realizing that they may be signing their own death certificates.
The inherent danger in the living will is that the terms in the document may not mean what a person thinks they mean or they may be dangerously vague. Webster's Dictionary defines "terminal" as "of or in the final stages of a fatal disease." Similarly, the average person thinks that "terminally ill" means that death cannot be prevented even with medical treatment. But in 24 states, for the purposes of the living will, a person is legally in a "terminal condition" even if her life could be saved by medical treatment, as long as she would still have a permanent disability of some kind. In fact, many living wills stipulate that "life-sustaining" treatment, including food and water, will not be administered if the person is in a "terminal" condition, even if the condition is non-fatal.
The purpose of any medical treatment is to sustain, if not prolong, life. Unfortunately, many people who sign living wills may be completely unaware that they are agreeing to their own starvation.
The issue at hand is not about keeping people alive at all cost simply because the medical technology is available; the issue is about protecting people who are being denied medical treatment and being starved to death merely because they are ill. What kind of message does this send to the infirm? Instead of creating a society where the sick are treated with compassion and care, we are creating an atmosphere of death.
To prevent people from suffering the same fate as Marjorie Nighbert, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has created the Will to Live. This differs from the living will by being based on a general presumption for life. It is also much more detailed to avoid ambiguities that could later be interpreted in favor of death. Currently, the Will to Live is complete for fourteen states: Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. The other states are in various stages of preparation and will be completed soon.
If you would like a Will to Live for one of the states mentioned, send a business size, self- addressed, stamped envelope to:
The Will to Live Project
419 7th Street, NW, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20004.
Anne E. Brennan
Reprinted from The American Feminist, Winter 1995/1996
© 2004 Feminists for Life
More on Marjorie:
http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/Terri/consequences_of_casual_conve.htm
MANY DEHYDRATION CASES have involved such casual statements. The most disturbing of these was that of Marjorie Nighbert, which, ironically, also occurred in Florida. Marjorie was a successful Ohio businesswoman who was visiting her family in Alabama when she was felled by a stroke that left her disabled but not terminally ill. After being stabilized, she was moved to a nursing home in Florida where, it was hoped, she could be rehabilitated to relearn how to chew and swallow without danger of aspiration. To ensure she was nourished, she was provided a feeding tube.
This presented an excruciating quandary for her brother Maynard, who had a general power of attorney from Marjorie (not power of attorney for health care), as a consequence of which he became her surrogate medical decision-maker. Marjorie had once told her brother that she didn't want a feeding tube if she were terminally ill. Despite the fact that she was not dying, however, Maynard believed that if she were unable to be weaned off the tube, she would have wanted to die rather than live using the tube for nourishment. When she did not improve, he ordered the tube removed.
As she was slowly dehydrating to death, Marjorie began to ask the staff for food and water. In response to her pleas, members of the nursing staff surreptitiously gave her small amounts. One distraught staffer eventually blew the whistle, leading to a state investigation and a temporary restraining order requiring that Marjorie be nourished
Circuit Court Judge Jere Tolton received the case and appointed attorney William F. Stone to represent Nighbert and to conduct a 24-hour inquiry, the sole issue being whether Marjorie was competent to rescind her power of attorney and make her own decisions. After the rushed investigation, Stone was forced to report to the judge that she was not competent at that time. She had, after all been intentionally malnourished for several weeks. Stone particularly noted that he had been unable to determine whether she was competent when the dehydration commenced.
With Stone's report in hand, the judge ruled that the dehydration should be completed, apparently on the theory that Marjorie did not have the competence to request the medical treatment of food and water. Before an appalled Stone could appeal, Nighbert died on April 6, 1995.
Society's approach to the so-called "right to die" has become far too casual. None of us should be made to die because of statements made in casual conversations or due to misconstrued oral directives. The time has come for the best legal minds in the country to draft model legislation that will tighten existing laws so as to give every reasonable legal benefit of the doubt to life rather than, as too often happens now, to slow death by dehydration.
Author Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and an attorney and consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. He is the author of Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder.