Replies

Hellooooo????? Open the brain up a bit, and look at the differences in the two situations.....

One......healthy young woman, on feeding tube only, NOT life support. The other, old, terminally ill woman ON LIFE SUPPORT.

See? Not even close to being the same thing.

Oh I get it NOW there is a difference, eh???

Suddenly one life is of less value than the other one so its OK to pull the plug on the old lady, is that it???

Is this official pro-life policy????

Maybe Dr Kennedy, Pat Robinson, Dr Dobson, the Pope, Rush, Hannity, Savage, etc would like to explain which lives are worth saving and which lives should have the plug pulled cause I'm really confused now!

One......healthy young woman, on feeding tube only, NOT life support. The other, old, terminally ill woman ON LIFE SUPPORT.

You have the gall to call someone in a PVS for 15 YEARS a "healthy young woman"?????? What planet are you from anyway???

JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concurring. The State's imposition of medical treatment on an unwilling competent adult necessarily involves some form of restraint and intrusion. A seriously ill or dying patient whose wishes are not honored may feel a captive of the machinery required for life-sustaining measures or other medical interventions. Such forced treatment may burden that individual's liberty interests as much as any state coercion. See, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 (1990); Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 600 (1979) ("It is not disputed that a child, in common with adults, has a substantial liberty interest in not being confined unnecessarily for medical treatment"). The State's artificial provision of nutrition and hydration implicates identical concerns. Artificial feeding cannot readily be distinguished from other forms of medical treatment. See, e.g., Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, AMA Ethical Opinion 2.20, Withholding or Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Medical Treatment, Current Opinions 13 (1989); The Hastings Center, Guidelines on the Termination of Life-Sustaining Treatment and the Care of the Dying 59 (1987). Whether or not the techniques used to pass food and water into the patient's alimentary tract are termed "medical treatment," it is clear they all involve some degree of intrusion and restraint. Feeding a patient by means of a nasogastric tube requires a physician to pass a long flexible tube through the patient's [497 U.S. 261, 289] nose, throat and esophagus and into the stomach. Because of the discomfort such a tube causes, "[m]any patients need to be restrained forcibly, and their hands put into large mittens to prevent them from removing the tube." Major, The Medical Procedures for Providing Food and Water: Indications and Effects, in By No Extraordinary Means: The Choice to Forgo Life-Sustaining Food and Water 25 (J. Lynn ed. 1986).

A gastrostomy tube (as was used to provide food and water to Nancy Cruzan, see ante at 266) or jejunostomy tube must be surgically implanted into the stomach or small intestine. Office of Technology Assessment Task Force, Life-Sustaining Technologies and the Elderly 282 (1988). Requiring a competent adult to endure such procedures against her will burdens the patient's liberty, dignity, and freedom to determine the course of her own treatment. Accordingly, the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause must protect, if it protects anything, an individual's deeply personal decision to reject medical treatment, including the artificial delivery of food and water.

"One......healthy young woman, on feeding tube only"

What is healthy about someone in a PVS.