🇺🇸
Constitutional Law • Substantive Due Process
CONLAW#101
Legal Definition
Competent adults have a right to refuse medical treatment, even life-saving treatment like food and water. A state may require clear and convincing evidence that a person wanted treatment terminated or prevent family members from terminating another's treatment.
Plain English Explanation
Competent adults generally have the right to decline any medical treatment, even if refusing treatment results in death. This respects personal liberty and the right to bodily integrity. However, states can enact safeguards before allowing refusal of life-sustaining treatment. For example, requiring clear evidence that the person wanted treatment withdrawn, like an <advance directive>. Or preventing family from unilaterally stopping a relative's treatment. These guardrails aim to avoid abuse and ensure the person's wishes are honored.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is a competent adult who has a serious illness. He told his doctor and family that he does not want any life-saving treatment, including being fed through tubes, if his condition worsens. Unfortunately, Bob's condition does get worse, and his family is faced with making a decision about his treatment. Result: Because Bob made his wishes clear from the beginning, and there's clear and convincing evidence of his decision, his right to refuse treatment is honored, despite the life-saving nature of the treatment.
Hypo 2: Sam is in a coma after an accident and hasn't previously expressed his wishes about refusing treatment. His brother, Bob, insists that Sam wouldn't want to be kept alive on life support. Result: Without clear and convincing evidence of Sam's wishes, the hospital continues life support, and Bob's request to terminate treatment is not honored, highlighting the importance of having clear wishes documented.
Hypo 3: George, a young adult without any prior health directives, suddenly falls critically ill. His parents want to refuse certain treatments based on their personal beliefs, not George's expressed wishes. Result: Without clear and convincing evidence of George's own wishes to refuse treatment, the hospital proceeds with all necessary life-saving treatments.
Hypo 4: Timmy, a minor, is diagnosed with a treatable condition. His parents refuse treatment on his behalf, citing their personal beliefs. Result: The rule doesn't apply here because Timmy is a minor, and the state steps in to ensure he receives necessary treatment, overriding his parents' decision to refuse treatment on his behalf.
Hypo 2: Sam is in a coma after an accident and hasn't previously expressed his wishes about refusing treatment. His brother, Bob, insists that Sam wouldn't want to be kept alive on life support. Result: Without clear and convincing evidence of Sam's wishes, the hospital continues life support, and Bob's request to terminate treatment is not honored, highlighting the importance of having clear wishes documented.
Hypo 3: George, a young adult without any prior health directives, suddenly falls critically ill. His parents want to refuse certain treatments based on their personal beliefs, not George's expressed wishes. Result: Without clear and convincing evidence of George's own wishes to refuse treatment, the hospital proceeds with all necessary life-saving treatments.
Hypo 4: Timmy, a minor, is diagnosed with a treatable condition. His parents refuse treatment on his behalf, citing their personal beliefs. Result: The rule doesn't apply here because Timmy is a minor, and the state steps in to ensure he receives necessary treatment, overriding his parents' decision to refuse treatment on his behalf.
