Cruzan V. Director, Missouri Department of Health

Thesis statement.

The origin of the case..

The Case...

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights

The Holding of the court.

The Court found in favor of the Missouri Dept. of Health.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights. There was no"clear and convincing" evidence that Cruzan desired her treatment to be withdrawn, and the Court found the State of Missouri's actions designed to preserve human life were constitutional because there was no guarantee family members would always act in the best interests of incompetent patients, and because the effects of withdrawing the life support were irreversible.

The Cruzan decision spurred considerable evidence in "living wills" which clearly express an individuals desire to discontinue treatment or feeding in specified circumstances.

(Later, additional evidence of Nancy's wishes was discovered and feeding was discontinued, leading to her death.)

Seven years later the Supreme Court had to face the right to die again in the Gonzales v. Oregon case. This case, however, was mostly about administrative law grounds. Not so much constitutional grounds.

• "Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 21 May 2012. Web. 24 May 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruzan_v._Director,_Missouri_Department_of_Health. (I used this site in order to get a broad spectrum of this case.)
• "CRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPT. OF HEALTH." Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health. Web. 24 May 2012. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1503>. (I used this site to research and use some of its factual information regarding the case basics.)
• "Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health." Cruzan v Director, Missouri Department of Health. Web. 24 May 2012. <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/cruzan.html>. (I used this site to further read more and understand more about this case.)
• "Cruzan v. Director, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990)." Cruzan v. Director, DMH 497 U.S. 261 (1990). Web. 24 May 2012. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-1503.ZS.html>.

Website (I used this site to research some background information regarding Nancy Cruzan.)

• "FindLaw | Cases and Codes." FindLaw | Cases and Codes. Web. 24 May 2012. <http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us>. (I used this website to understand the after effects this case caused.)

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep. of Health

The respondent was Director, Missouri Dept. of Health.

The petitioner for this case was Nancy Cruzan. Cruzan's parents were co-petititoners.

The parents then sought and received authorization from the state trial court for termination. The court found that a person in Nancy's condition had a fundamental right under the State and Federal Constitutions to refuse or direct the withdrawal of "death prolonging procedures." The court also found that Nancy's "expressed thoughts at age twenty-five in somewhat serious conversation with a housemate friend that if sick or injured she would not wish to continue her life unless she could live at least halfway normally suggests that given her present condition she would not wish to continue on with her nutrition and hydration."

In 1983, Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in an automobile accident which left her in a coma. After a few weeks she was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Later surgeons inserted a feeding tube for her long-term care which consisted of four years. Since a ghastly amount of time had passed with no improvement from Nancy, her parents attempted to terminate her life support system. Hospital officials refused to do so without court approval.

They argued that since their daughter once had a serious discussion regarding her death they believed she would not want this sort of life for herself. Therefore they believed that in her current state they were the ones responcible and their decision was to remove their daughter's life support.

I completely agree with the verdict the Supreme Court established. I as well believe that when dealing with incompetent patients one should have standard and defined evidence to demonstrate that the patient would no longer wish to live.

State of Missouri believed they had the right to require "clear and convincing evidence" in order for the Cruzans to remove their daughter from life support.

•Did the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit Cruzan's parents to refuse life-sustaining treatment on their daughter's behalf?

The State Supreme Court reversed.

Notes..

The court decided that Cruzan's statements to her housemate were unreliable for the purpose of determining her intent. It rejected the argument that her parents were entitled to order the termination of her medical treatment, concluding that no person can assume that choice for an incompetent in the absence of the formalities required by the Living Will statute or clear and convincing evidence of the patient's wishes.

•Annotated Bibliography: