Justice Sandra Day O'Connor follows with a similar question. A unanimous Supreme Court overturned the verdict and declared that the First Amendment's protection of free expression extends to publications that intentionally inflict emotional distress. Her parents attempted to end life support but state hospital officials refused to do so. By keeping their daughter alive, the parents argued, the state violated Cruzan's right to decline unwanted medical treatment. Right exists to decline treatment.
State has interest in protecting patients.
Justice O'Connor asks Cruzan attorney William H. Colby whether a competent adult patient has an absolute right to refuse food and water while Justice Scalia questions whether the decision to die can be a rational decision. Speaking to Missouri's attorney Robert L. Presson, Scalia probes whether or not a state can require medical treatment when the patient has specifically declared that she wanted no such treatment. The case was the first pronouncement concerning the constitutional interests of dying medical patients and by a 5-4 decision, the court rejected the Cruzans' argument. In the last major case dealing with abortion to reach the Supreme Court, Planned Parenthood challenged a Pennsylvania law that required a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could have an abortion, parental notification for minors and the notification of a woman's husband. Pennsylvania law violates right to abortion.