Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||
| Argued December 6, 1989 Decided June 25, 1990 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||||
| 1. The United States Constitution does not forbid Missouri to require that evidence of an incompetent's wishes as to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Pp. 269-285. [497 U.S. 261, 262]
2. The State Supreme Court did not commit constitutional error in concluding that the evidence adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing proof of Cruzan's desire to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn. The trial court had not adopted a clear and convincing evidence standard, and Cruzan's observations that she did not want to live life as a "vegetable" did not deal in terms with withdrawal of medical treatment or of hydration and nutrition. 3. The Due Process Clause does not require a State to accept the "substituted judgment" of close family members in the absence of substantial proof that their views reflect the patient's. This Court's decision upholding a State's favored treatment of traditional family relationships, Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110 , may not be turned into a constitutional requirement that a State must recognize the primacy of these relationships in a situation like this. Nor may a decision upholding a State's right to permit family decisionmaking, Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 , be turned into a constitutional requirement that the State recognize such decisionmaking. |
||||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||||
| Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: William J. Brennan, Jr., Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy |
||||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||||
| Majority by: Rehnquist Joined by: White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy Concurrence by: O'Connor Concurrence by: Scalia Dissent by: Brennan Joined by: Marshall, Blackmun Dissent by: Stevens |
||||||||||||
| Laws applied | ||||||||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV U.S. Const. amend. IX | ||||||||||||
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case argued on December 6, 1989 and decided on June 25, 1990. In a 5-4 decision, the Court affirmed the ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri below and ruled in favor of the State of Missouri, finding it was acceptable to require "clear and convincing evidence" for removal of life support.
Contents |
[edit] Background
On January 11, 1983, Nancy Cruzan lost control of her old car that had no seat belts, was thrown from it and landed face down in a water-filled ditch. Paramedics found her with no vital signs, but they resuscitated her. After a couple weeks of remaining dormant within a coma, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long-term care. Her husband and parents waited for a more substantial recovery, but eventually, after four years, accepted that there was no hope.
[edit] Issues presented
The issue of this case was whether the State of Missouri had the right to require "clear and convincing evidence" in order for the Cruzans to remove their daughter from life support.
[edit] Decision
In a 5-4 decision, the Court found in favor of the Missouri Dept. of Health. However, it upheld the legal standard that competent persons are able to exercise the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause. Because there was no "clear and convincing evidence" of what Nancy Cruzan wanted, the Court upheld the state's policy.
[edit] Following the Decision
After the case was decided the family went back and found more proof that Nancy Cruzan would have wanted her life support terminated and eventually won a court order to have her removed from life support. Cruzan died 11 days later on December 26, 1990.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- ^ 497 U.S. 261 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- Summary of case from OYEZ
