holding “that no legal proceedings are necessary in the great majority of cases involving the termination of life sustaining treatment to persons in [the instant patient’s] condition,” namely, a persistent vegetative state
How later courts described this case
- holding “that no legal proceedings are necessary in the great majority of cases involving the termination of life sustaining treatment to persons in [the instant patient’s] condition,” namely, a persistent vegetative state
- “eight of the nine justices [in Cruzan] found a federal due process liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment”
- "[T]here is no need for a court to intervene in this decisionmaking process unless there is disagreement between the interested parties, who are usually identified as the medical professionals involved in treating and evaluating the patient and the patient's family or guardian."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McEWEN, Judge,
concurring.
“Your money or your life!”, demanded the highwayman of the horseman. “I can protect your money, but not your life.”, decreed the chancellor. How anomalous that both the lawless and the lawful share a particular focus — property.
The compelling presentation of divergent views expressed by my esteemed colleagues fulfills so admirably our intermediate appellate role and so precisely defines the issues as to readily enable review by our Supreme Court. Thus, while, under the facts of this case, I concur in the decision to permit the termination of life-sustaining treatment of Daniel Joseph *639 Fiori, I refrain from joinder in any expression since I am beset by a nagging uncertainty: what values does a society reflect when it permits its legal system to require careful judicial scrutiny of decisions affecting the property of an incompetent, but precludes similar judicial scrutiny of a decision to terminate the life of the incompetent?