Replies

In our view: Blurring the line on right to die

1/29/05

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the Florida right-to-die battle involving the husband and parents of a brain-damaged woman was a reminder of an earlier court’s decision in the Nancy Cruzan case and Circuit Judge Charles E. Teel’s courageous ruling in 1990. Judge Teel, who died a few weeks ago, opened the door for the advent of living wills and personal directives that allow patients to reject extraordinary medical treatment to preserve life after brain function ceases and hope is gone.
In declining to hear the narrowly defined case of Terri Schiavo, who suffered brain damage at the age of 24 after her heart stopped beating in 1993 because of an eating disorder, the Supreme Court has allowed the removal of Schiavo’s life-sustaining tubes. The parents of the girl hoped the court would prevent that action. The husband contends that his wife would not have wanted to live in her current condition but has provided no evidence.
The Schiavo and the Cruzan cases are not the same. Both have as the central issue the right of an ill or injured individual, perceived to be permanently brain damaged, to have someone in place to order the removal of life-sustaining technology.
Teel saw his original decision in favor of removing the feeding and hydration tubes of Nancy Cruzan appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court, in essence, found that convincing proof was necessary to show that Nancy Cruzan would not have wanted to have her body kept alive indefinitely. Such testimony came in 1990 and Judge Teel ruled that Nancy’s parents could order the life-support tubes withdrawn. She died in December of that year.
In the Schiavo case, there appears no way to fathom Terri’s wishes and there are strong competing interests: her parents versus the husband. Although the case is supposed to apply only to Terri Schiavo, the court’s refusal to hear the appeal may be viewed as discarding or discounting the idea of requiring clear and compelling evidence. It may preview how the justices will approach an upcoming hearing on Oregon’s right-to-die law.
The Cruzan case set a standard for determining an individual’s right to control prolonged medical treatment through living wills and personal directives and, absent those, through compelling evidence of what the patient would have wanted. By its inaction, the U.S. Supreme Court may be blurring that line.
http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=158292