Opinion ID: 1967199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Care for the Dying Patient

Text: Once a valid decision to discontinue the life-supporting apparatus has been made, a court should consider its implementation. [A] decision to forgo particular life-sustaining treatments is not a ground to withdraw all care  nor should care-givers treat it in this way, especially when care is needed to ensure the patient's comfort, dignity, and self-determination. President's Commission Report, supra, at 90. In this case the evidence suggested that Kathleen Farrell would die of suffocation within a matter of minutes if the respirator was disconnected. Hence the normal care due to a dying person described in the President's Commission Report would be of limited concern. As noted, Kathleen Farrell's attending physician personally was opposed to discontinuing the respirator, but he conscientiously agreed to remain in attendance to comfort his patient. In addition, Kathleen Farrell had the service of an around-the-clock nursing team. In other cases, I believe that a court will want to assure that care commensurate to the needs of the dying patient will be provided. The care and nurture of the dying, no less than the living, reflects one of the most fundamental aspects of our shared humanity. Provided that the means taken do not in fact add to the suffering and discomfort of the dying patient, as they did both here and in Conroy, the dying person should continue to receive the caring support of health providers. To repeat, in this case all the evidence indicated that Kathleen Farrell's death from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis would not be needlessly prolonged and that her physician and her husband would be in attendance. I therefore concur in the judgment. For affirmance  Chief Justice WILENTZ, Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN  7.