Wendland v. Wendland
| Wendland v. Wendland | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of California |
| Full case name | Rose Wendland v. Florence Wendland |
| Decided | August 09 2001 |
| Citation(s) |
26 Cal |
| Holding | |
| In the absence of a legally recognized method of determining who should make medical decisions on the behalf of an incompetent patient, the constitutional right to life and privacy granted special protection to the incompetent person. | |
In 2001, in the case Wendland v. Wendland, also known as the Robert Wendland case, the Supreme Court of California unanimously[1] ruled that Rose Wendland, the wife of Robert Wendland, in absence of a durable power of attorney for health care (DPAHC), did not have the authority to refuse artificial nutrition and hydration on her husbands' behalf. The Court recognized that patients unable to make a decision for themselves should receive special protection according to their constitutional right to life and right to privacy.
Background
In 1993, Robert Wendland became permanently physically and mentally disabled after being severely injured in an automobile accident.[1] After spending 16 months in a coma, Robert Wendland emerged with severe cognitive impairment, being unable to "swallow, control his bowels or bladder, communicate verbally or nonverbally, or act volitionally," but he was able to react to simple commands with much repetitive coaching.[2] Robert's wife and children also believed that he was unable to recognize them.
Two years later, after being informed by Robert's physicians that Robert had no reasonable chance of improvement, his wife, Rose, and children requested that Robert's physicians to remove the feeding tube and allow Robert to die.[1] According to Rose and Robert's brother, who had both spoken to Robert before his accident about living on life support or being kept alive through a feeding tube, Robert would not have wanted to live under those conditions.[2]
This decision was challenged by Robert's estranged mother, Florence, who sued Rose in order to prevent the removal of feeding tubes from her son, and the lawsuit lasted for six years until the decision made by the Supreme Court of California in 2001.[1]
The court's decision
The Supreme Court of California supported the superior court's decision to require the conservator, Rose Wendland, to clearly prove that withholding the feeding tubes would have been in Robert Wendland's best interest. Since Robert Wendland had not given Rose DPAHC or left any written documentation stating his treatment desires, the Court ruled that Rose Wendland did not have the authority to refuse life-sustaining treatment on Robert Wendland's behalf in order to provide special protection to a mentally impaired person's right to life and right to privacy.
According to Nelson, if Robert had given Rose the power of attorney, the Court would have respected Rose's decision to remove Robert's feeding tubes.[1]
See also
References
- 1 2 3 4 5 Nelson, Laurence. "Persistent Indeterminate State: Reflections on the Wendland Case". Santa Clara University. Retrieved 12 September 2011.
- 1 2 Eisenberg, Jon B.; J Clark Kelso (March 2002). "The Robert Wendland case". Western Journal of Medicine 176 (2): 176(2): 124. PMC 1071684. PMID 11897737. Retrieved 12 September 2011.