Case Study: Nancy Cruzan

Case Study: Nancy Cruzan

The Dilemma

Brief Overview

References

The Outcome

The Decision

(Parents of Nancy)

In Courts

• "A competent adult has a constitutionally-protected Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in declining unwanted medical procedures."

• When the patient is incompetent, the state can refuse termination, unless there is "clear and convincing evidence" that it's what the patient would have wanted.

• http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1503

• http://www.studentjd.com/Constitution/Cruzan%20v.%20Director%20Missouri%20Department%20of%20Health%5BCh%206%5D%5BImplied%20Fundamental%20Rights%5D%5Bsubstantial%20due%20process%5D%5BLife%20Support%5D%5Bprotects%20refusal%20of%20treatment%5D.htm

• http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v4n2/

• Name: Nancy Cruzan
• Age: 25
• Date: January 1983
• Issue: In a vegetative state with probable brain damage.
• Cause: Lack of oxygen for 13 minutes after a car accident.
• Method of Treatment: Implanted feeding and hydration tube.

• Legal husband wanted Nancy to stay on tube treatment.
• However, her parents wanted to terminate the procedures after failed recovery.
• Hospital would only terminate the procedures with court consent.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Missouri.

• Why?
• Because there was no “clear and convincing evidence” that Nancy would've wanted to die

Parent's View:

• Nancy's brain is permanently damaged
• Prolonging death
• She wouldn't want to live

State's View:

• There isn't sufficient proof she would've wanted to die