On the 11 th of January 1983, Nancy Cruzan lost control of her car and got involved in a fatal accident. When paramedics got to the scene, they found her with no vitals but managed to resuscitate her. She was in a comma for two weeks and was later declared to be vegetative by the hospital. She was placed in long term care and had feeding tubes inserted into her system ( Guadin, 1990) . Five years later, Cruzan’s parents asked the hospital to remove the feeding tubes but the hospital and its practitioners refused demanding that the Cruzans have a court order. The Cruzans got an order from the trial allowing them have the feeding tube removed. The decision was founded on evidence of Nancy wanting life support to be withdrawn in case she was sick or injured and could not continue with her life half as normal. She had informed her friend concerning this in early 1983 before her accident ( Starr, 1991) . Nonetheless, Nancy’s guardian ad litem and the hospital appeal this decision at the Missouri Supreme Court which ruled that no individual had the right to deny another treatment in the absence of reliable evidence ( Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health ) . The Cruzan’s then appealed this decision and the US Supreme Court decided to hear the case.
The issue in the case was whether Cruzan’s parents had the legal right under the constitution to have the hospital terminate Nancy’s life without her consent. The key participants in the case where the Cruzans, the Hospital and Nancy’s guardian ad litem. Even when in vegetative state, did she have the right under the United States constitution to have the hospital withdraw her life support? The case referred to the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that has provisions on one’s substantive right to assisted suicide and the Equal Protection provided by this amendment ( Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health ) . The fourteenth amendment provides the Equal Protection Clause which guarantees all individuals equal rights including those who are sick and in vegetative state like Nancy Cruzan.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The case, alongside similar cases in the history of equal protection and assisted suicide has helped shape the constitutional provisions on assisted suicide. Over the years, Cruzan’s case has helped the justice system to clearly spell out matters affecting the death process and assisted suicide including matters of euthanasia or physician’s aid in committing suicide. Nonetheless, the courts have over the years maintained the notion that the American constitution does not in any way support assisted suicide. Even so, the constitution and courts seem to provide some protection for other forms of interventions in the death and dying process including euthanasia. However, the constitutional right for one to die remains under consideration by the United States Supreme Court, and cases such as this have contributed immensely to this consideration.
I chose the case due to its focus on the constitutional right for one to die or for assisted suicide. This aspect of the constitution remains vague as the constitution upholds the legality of certain aspects of the dying process including euthanasia while failing to protect other aspects including assisted suicide. I want to gain continued understanding of this aspect of the law to ensure that when I encounter such cases in the future, I can understand the foundation of the court’s decision. The case also provides the opportunity to analyze how matters of assisted suicide have evolved over time when comparing to the court’s decision as the case was going on. It further provides one the opportunity to critically analyze why the court was against the parents desire to withdraw the feeding tubes when Nancy had earlier on hinted to being left to die in case even half of her recovery was not guaranteed.
I do not agree with the court’s decision as I believe Cruzan had the right for her dying wishes to be fulfilled. Even when she could not make this decision while in vegetative state, she had made it before she got in the accident. The hospital and practitioners were legally required to sustain her life until she died naturally. Nonetheless, the parents were aware that she would not recover after she was on life support and in a vegetative state for a few years. One may argue that she was incapacitated and therefore could not spell out her dying wish. Nonetheless, the court and doctors needed to consider her chances of recovery, the emotional toll her presence in the hospital was having on her family and the financial expenses the family was incurring and have this as the foundation for the decision to have the feeding tubes withdrawn.
I have learned from the case that matters of the dying process especially for patients who are incapacitated or in vegetative state are still controversial. The provisions in the constitution have no clear statement of the protection of assisted suicide and states still have the right to overrule any decision to end a person’s life without their consent. I have also learned to that the family may not have as much control on how an individual dies especially when in vegetative state and much of the authority is left for the state and the hospital. In many instances, these two institutions will choose to protect the individual’s right to live by ensuring that he or she is not withdrawn from life support.
References
Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health , 497 U.S. 261, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 111 L. Ed. 2d 224 (1990).
Guadin, A. M. (1990). Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health: To Die or Not to Die: That Is the Question-But Who Decides. La. L. Rev. , 51 , 1307.
Starr, J. (1991). Determining the Wishes of the Incompetent: Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 110 S. Ct. 2841 (1990). Wash. UJ Urb. & Contemp. L. , 39 , 263.
