Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health

Last updated

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 6, 1989
Decided June 25, 1990
Full case nameNancy Beth Cruzan, by her parents and co-guardians, Cruzan et ux. v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, et al.
Citations497 U.S. 261 ( more )
110 S. Ct. 2841; 111 L. Ed. 2d 224; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3301; 58 U.S.L.W. 4916
Case history
PriorCertiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri
Holding
Missouri may, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, require that an incompetent's wish to discontinue life support be proven by clear and convincing evidence before life-sustaining treatment may be withdrawn.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
MajorityRehnquist, joined by White, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
ConcurrenceO'Connor
ConcurrenceScalia
DissentBrennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun
DissentStevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. IX, XIV

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving a young adult incompetent. The first "right to die" case ever heard by the Court, Cruzan was argued on December 6, 1989, and decided on June 25, 1990. In a 5–4 decision, the Court affirmed the earlier ruling of the Supreme Court of Missouri and ruled in favor of the State of Missouri, finding it was acceptable to require "clear and convincing evidence" of a patient's wishes for removal of life support. A significant outcome of the case was the creation of advance health directives.

Contents

Background

On January 11, 1983, then-25-year-old Nancy Cruzan (born July 20, 1957) lost control of her car while driving at nighttime near Carthage, Missouri. She was thrown from the vehicle and landed face-down in a water-filled ditch. [1] Paramedics found her with no vital signs but resuscitated her. After three weeks in a coma, she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). [1] Surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long-term care. [1]

In 1988, Cruzan's parents asked her doctors to remove her feeding tube. [2] The hospital refused to do so without a court order, since removal of the tube would cause Cruzan's death. [2] The Cruzans filed for and received a court order for the feeding tube to be removed. [3] The trial court ruled that constitutionally there is a "fundamental natural right ... to refuse or direct the withholding or withdrawal of artificial life-prolonging procedures when the person has no more cognitive brain function ... and there is no hope of further recovery." [4] The court ruled that Cruzan had effectively 'directed' the withdrawal of life support by telling a friend earlier that year that if she were sick or injured, "she would not wish to continue her life unless she could live at least halfway normally." [4]

The state of Missouri and Cruzan's guardian ad litem, Walter E. Williams, both appealed this decision. In a 4–3 decision, the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed the trial court's decision. It ruled that no one may refuse treatment for another person, absent an adequate living will "or the clear and convincing, inherently reliable evidence absent here." [5] The Cruzans appealed, and in 1989 the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case. [2]

Issues

The legal question was whether the State of Missouri had the right to require "clear and convincing evidence" for the Cruzans to remove their daughter from life support. Specifically, the Supreme Court considered whether Missouri was violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to remove Nancy's feeding tube. [6] The Due Process Clause provides: "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.]" [7]

The Cruzans' lawyer summarized the constitutional basis for his appeal thusly:

The issue in this case... is whether a state can order a person to receive invasive medical treatment when that order is contrary to the wishes of the family, when it overrides all available evidence about the person's wishes from prior to the accident, when the decision to forego treatment is among acceptable medical alternatives and when the state gives no specific justification for that intrusion other than their general interest in life. We submit that the Fourteenth Amendment and the liberty guarantee there protects individuals, conscious or unconscious, from such invasion by the state, without any particularized interest for that invasion. [8]

Decision

Cruzan was the first "right to die" case the Supreme Court had ever heard, and it proved divisive for the Court. [9] p. 27 In a 5–4 decision, the Court found in favor of the Missouri Department of Health and ruled that nothing in the Constitution prevents the state of Missouri from requiring "clear and convincing evidence" before terminating life-supporting treatment, [6] upholding the ruling of the Missouri Supreme Court. Reflecting the controversiality of the "end of life" issue, five Justices wrote separate opinions about the case. [6]

In a majority opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court ruled that competent individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause. [6] However, with incompetent individuals, the Court upheld the state of Missouri's higher standard for evidence of what the person would want if they were able to make their own decisions. This higher evidentiary standard was constitutional, the Court ruled, because family members might not always make decisions that the incompetent person would have agreed with, and those decisions might lead to actions (like withdrawing life support) that would be irreversible. [6] [10]

Right to die vs. suicide

In court cases, like the Karen Ann Quinlan case [11] and the Elizabeth Bouvia [12] cases, the courts had highlighted the differences between dying from refusing treatment, and dying from suicide. However, in his concurring opinion in Cruzan, Justice Scalia noted that this distinction could be "merely verbal" if death is sought "by starvation instead of a drug." [13]

Justice Scalia argued that refusing medical treatment, if doing so would cause a patient's death, was equivalent to the right to commit suicide. The right to commit suicide, he added, was not a due process right protected in the Constitution. As legal scholar Susan Stefan writes: "[Justice Scalia] argued that states had the right to 'prevent, by force if necessary,' people from committing suicide, including refusing treatment when that refusal would cause the patient to die." [9] p. 28

Justice Scalia's opinion raised important questions about the legal differences between refusal of treatment, suicide, assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, and "letting die", and the state's responsibility in preventing these, which would prove crucial issues in right to die and right to life cases to come. [9] pp. 31–33

Aftermath

The Cruzans

After the Supreme Court's decision, the Cruzans gathered additional evidence that Cruzan would have wanted her life support terminated. The State of Missouri withdrew from the case in September 1990 since its law had been upheld and it had won the larger constitutional issue being considered. [9] p. 29 With the Cruzans facing no opposition, Jasper County Probate Judge Charles Teel ruled that the Cruzans had met the evidentiary burden of "clear and convincing evidence." [2] He issued a court order to remove Cruzan's feeding tube. On December 14, 1990, the feeding tube was removed, and Cruzan died on December 26, 1990. [2]

Cruzan's case had attracted national interest, and right-to-life activists and organizations filed seven separate petitions with the court asking to resume feeding, but were found to have no legal standing for intervention. [14]

At Cruzan's funeral, her father told reporters, "I would prefer to have my daughter back and let someone else be this trailblazer." [9] p. 29 Six years later, on August 17, 1996, he killed himself. [15]

Significance

The Cruzan case set several important precedents: [9] [14] pp. 27–28

It also generated a great deal of interest in living wills and advance directives. [14] For example, just one month after the Supreme Court ruling in Cruzan, the Society for the Right to Die had received some 300,000 requests for advance directive forms. [14]

According to an article in The New York Times , the Cruzan case also helped increase support for the federal Patient Self-Determination Act, which became effective just under a year after Nancy Cruzan's death. [14] The Act required hospitals and nursing homes that received federal funding to give patients advance-directive information and explain right-to-die options that are available under the laws of their states. [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Advance healthcare directive</span> Legal document

An advance healthcare directive, also known as living will, personal directive, advance directive, medical directive or advance decision, is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity. In the U.S. it has a legal status in itself, whereas in some countries it is legally persuasive without being a legal document.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Do not resuscitate</span> Legal order saying not to perform CPR if heart stops

A do-not-resuscitate order (DNR), also known as Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR), Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR), no code or allow natural death, is a medical order, written or oral depending on the jurisdiction, indicating that a person should not receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) if that person's heart stops beating. Sometimes these decisions and the relevant documents also encompass decisions around other critical or life-prolonging medical interventions. The legal status and processes surrounding DNR orders vary in different polities. Most commonly, the order is placed by a physician based on a combination of medical judgement and patient involvement.

The right to die is a concept based on the opinion that human beings are entitled to end their life or undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of the right to die is often bestowed with the understanding that a person with a terminal illness, incurable pain, or without the will to continue living should be allowed to end their own life, use assisted suicide, or decline life-prolonging treatment. The question of who, if anyone, may be empowered to make this decision is often the subject of debate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terri Schiavo case</span> American right-to-die legal case

The Terri Schiavo case was a series of court and legislative actions in the United States from 1998 to 2005, regarding the care of Theresa Marie Schiavo, a woman in an irreversible persistent vegetative state. Schiavo's husband and legal guardian argued that Schiavo would not have wanted prolonged artificial life support without the prospect of recovery, and in 1998, he elected to remove her feeding tube. Schiavo's parents disputed her husband's assertions and challenged Schiavo's medical diagnosis, arguing in favor of continuing artificial nutrition and hydration. The highly publicized and prolonged series of legal challenges presented by her parents, which ultimately involved state and federal politicians up to the level of George W. Bush, the then U.S. president, caused a seven-year delay before Schiavo's feeding tube was ultimately removed.

The legislative, executive, and judicial branches, of both the United States federal government and the State of Florida, were involved in the case of Terri Schiavo. In November 1998 Michael Schiavo, husband of Terri Schiavo, first sought permission to remove his wife's feeding tube. Schiavo had suffered brain damage in February 1990, and in February 2000 had been ruled by a Florida circuit court to be in a persistent vegetative state. Her feeding tube was removed first on April 26, 2001, but was reinserted two days later on an appeal by her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Missouri</span> Highest court in the U.S. state of Missouri

The Supreme Court of Missouri is the highest court in the state of Missouri. It was established in 1820 and is located at 207 West High Street in Jefferson City, Missouri. Missouri voters have approved changes in the state's constitution to give the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction – the sole legal power to hear – over five types of cases on appeal. Pursuant to Article V, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, these cases involve:

In United States and Canadian law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings or transactions, and the mental condition a person must have to be responsible for his or her decisions or acts. Competence is an attribute that is decision-specific. Depending on various factors which typically revolve around mental function integrity, an individual may or may not be competent to make a particular medical decision, a particular contractual agreement, to execute an effective deed to real property, or to execute a will having certain terms.

Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without the consent of the person being treated. Involuntary treatment is permitted by law in some countries when overseen by the judiciary through court orders; other countries defer directly to the medical opinions of doctors.

Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously held that a right to assisted suicide in the United States was not protected by the Due Process Clause.

Involuntary Euthanasia is currently illegal in all 50 states of the United States. Assisted suicide is legal in 10 jurisdictions in the US: Washington, D.C. and the states of California, Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, New Mexico, Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Washington. The status of assisted suicide is disputed in Montana, though currently authorized per the Montana Supreme Court's ruling in Baxter v. Montana that "nothing in Montana Supreme Court precedent or Montana statutes [indicates] that physician aid in dying is against public policy."

Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to die. It ruled 9–0 that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great pain, was a legitimate state interest that was well within the authority of the state to regulate. In brief, this decision established that, as a matter of law, there was no constitutional guarantee of a "right to die."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legality of euthanasia</span>

The legality of euthanasia varies between countries and territories. Efforts to change government policies on euthanasia of humans in the 20th and 21st centuries have met with limited success in Western countries. Human euthanasia policies have also been developed by a variety of NGOs, most advocacy organisations although medical associations express a range of perspectives, and supporters of palliative care broadly oppose euthanasia.

Rogers v. Okin was a landmark case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered whether a person diagnosed with mental illness committed to a state psychiatric facility and assumed to be competent, has the right to make treatment decisions in non-emergency conditions.

Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed an Oklahoma court decision holding that a defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial unless he proves otherwise by the second highest legal standard of proof, that of clear and convincing evidence, ruling that to be unconstitutional. The court said the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process were violated.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Euthanasia in Canada</span> Legal history of euthanasia in Canada

Euthanasia in Canada in its legal voluntary form is called Medical Assistance in Dying and it first became legal along with assisted suicide in June 2016 for those whose death was reasonably foreseeable. In March 2021, the law was further amended by Bill C-7 which to include those suffering from a grievous and irremediable condition whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. According to the Fourth Annual Report on MAID, there were 13,241 MAID deaths reported in Canada in 2022.

A surrogate decision maker, also known as a health care proxy or as agents, is an advocate for incompetent patients. If a patient is unable to make decisions for themselves about personal care, a surrogate agent must make decisions for them. If there is a durable power of attorney for health care, the agent appointed by that document is authorized to make health care decisions within the scope of authority granted by the document. If people have court-appointed guardians with authority to make health care decisions, the guardian is the authorized surrogate.

The mature minor doctrine is a rule of law found in the United States and Canada accepting that an unemancipated minor patient may possess the maturity to choose or reject a particular health care treatment, sometimes without the knowledge or agreement of parents, and should be permitted to do so. It is now generally considered a form of patients rights; formerly, the mature minor rule was largely seen as protecting health care providers from criminal and civil claims by parents of minors at least 15.

In 2001, in the case Conservatorship of Wendland, also known as Wendland v. Wendland, and the Robert Wendland case, the Supreme Court of California unanimously ruled that Rose Wendland, the wife of Robert Wendland, in the absence of a durable power of attorney for health care (DPAHC), did not have the authority to withhold artificial nutrition and hydration in her husband's behalf. The Court recognized that patients unable to make a decision for themselves should receive special protection according to the right to life and right to privacy provided by the California constitution.

This disability rights timeline lists events relating to the civil rights of people with disabilities in the United States of America, including court decisions, the passage of legislation, activists' actions, significant abuses of people with disabilities, and the founding of various organizations. Although the disability rights movement itself began in the 1960s, advocacy for the rights of people with disabilities started much earlier and continues to the present.

Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S.W.2d 408, 430–433 (Mo. 1988) (en banc) (Higgins, J., dissenting).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Gaudin, Anne Marie (July 1991). "Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health: To Die or Not to Die: That is the Question – But Who Decides?". Louisiana Law Review. 51 (6): 1308–1345. Retrieved March 21, 2016.
  3. Estate of Cruzan, Estate No. CV384-9P (P. Div. Cir. Ct., Jasper County, Mo., July 27, 1988).
  4. 1 2 Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S.W.2d 408, 434 (Mo. 1988) (en banc) (Higgins, J., dissenting) (quoting the lower trial court)
  5. Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S.W.2d 408, 425 (Mo. 1988) (en banc).
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 110 S. Ct. 2841 (1990).
  7. "Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27". Charters of Freedom. United States National Archives and Records Administration. October 30, 2015. Retrieved March 22, 2016.
  8. "Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health: Oral Argument – December 06, 1989 [Transcript]". The Oyez Project. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Institute of Technology. December 6, 1989. Retrieved March 22, 2016.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stefan, Susan (2016). Rational Suicide, Irrational Laws. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0199981199.
  10. "Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health". The Oyez Project. IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Institute of Technology. December 6, 1989. Retrieved March 22, 2016.
  11. In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 25 (1976).
  12. Robert Sternbrook and Bernard Lo, “The Case of Elizabeth Bouvia: Starvation, Suicide, or Problem Patient?” 146 Archives of Internal Medicine 161 (1986). doi : 10.1001/archinte.1986.00360130199026.
  13. Cruzan v. Missouri, 497 U.S. 261, 297 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring).
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lewin, Tamar (December 27, 1990). "Nancy Cruzan Dies, Outlived by a Debate Over the Right to Die". The New York Times . New York, New York. Retrieved March 22, 2016.
  15. Pace, Eric (August 19, 1996). "Lester Cruzan Is Dead at 62; Fought to Let His Daughter Die". The New York Times. New York, New York. Retrieved March 22, 2016.