Essentially, the Court held that a patient no longer able to communicate may now exercise this 'right' through a family member or duly authorized guardian. 1976 - Supreme Court of New Jersey
The ruling revolved upon on what he would have said if he could have spoken in his own behalf. The Court extended the decision by stating that persons who have never been able to make judgments for themselves have the 'right to die.' Later decisions in the Massachusetts court held that families and physicians could make such judgments without even going to court.1977 - Supreme Court of Massachusetts
The court found that Brother Fox's refusal of treatment (expressed while he was still conscious) was legally binding, and ordered the hospital to disconnect the respirator and let him die.1981 - New York Court of Appeals
the appeals court reversed the ruling on the grounds that withholding life support and food was a passive omission, not an aggressive action designed to murder.1983 - California Court of Appeals
The Court held that food and water is in the same category as artificial respirators and other medical treatment and may be withdrawn as "extraordinary measures."1985 - New Jersey Supreme Court
The Florida Court of Appeals decided that "a penumbral right to privacy" allowed the patient or a third party acting for her to refuse artificially administered food and water, even with a State law in place prohibiting such withdrawal.1986 - Florida Court of Appeals
The court found that Brophy, were he conscious, would want the feeding tube and life support systems disconnected. The court also found that Brophy could not be kept alive without his consent.
The ruling held that a patient need not be in a coma or near death to decline treatment. The 'right to privacy' may decide whether or not his or her 'quality of life' is sufficient to go on living.
This case vastly expanded the pool of patients whose food and water could be withdrawn, . In other words, third parties who could "best understand the patient's personal values and beliefs" could substitute their judgment for the patient's. The Court also ruled that, from this point onward, no Court hearing was necessary for health care facilities to gain permission to stop the feeding of a patient or patients.1987 - New Jersey Supreme Court
She and her family had expressed a wish that extraordinary measures not be implemented to extend her life. District Court Judge Francis Boyle ruled that the state-run General Hospital must remove her feeding tube.
. The North Dakota Court ruled that even food placed in a person's mouth is "artificial and intrusive," and a family could order such feeding stopped without Court intervention, and without confirmation from the patient.
Nonetheless, it's great research on your part, recognizing it is of no value, unless it was included in the arguments before the court, and we don't know the content of the filing, do we.