Beyond the Cruzan Case: The U.S. Supreme Court and Medical Practice
Authors: Bernard Lo, Robert Steinbrook
Journal: Annals of Internal Medicine (1991)

Medicine and Public Issues15 May 1991Beyond the Cruzan Case: The U.S. Supreme Court and Medical PracticeBernard Lo, MD, Robert Steinbrook, MDBernard Lo, MD, Robert Steinbrook, MDAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-114-10-895 SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail ExcerptIn a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a Missouri ruling that sharply limited family decisions about life-sustaining treatment for incompetent patients. The Court held that the Constitution protects the refusal of life-sustaining treatment by competent patients. For incompetent patients, states may require "clear and convincing" evidence of refusal, specifically for the withdrawal of tube feedings, if such a person were in a persistent vegetative state. The ruling left many clinical questions unanswered, such as whether life-sustaining treatment must be given to terminally ill incompetent patients, whether patients may refuse artificial feedings, and what constitutes clear and convincing evidence of refusal. The decision also has potentially harmful consequences. It may undermine family decision making, encourage cynicism and disregard of the law, and promote defensive medicine. Physicians can minimize such consequences by encouraging patients to provide advance directives, such as the durable power of attorney for health care, by urging legislative action, and by setting national practice standards for decisions regarding incompetent patients....References1. Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health. 497 U.S. —,111 L.Ed.2d 224,110 S.Ct. 2841 (1990). Google Scholar2. LoRouseDornbrand BFL. Family decision making on trial. Who decides for incompetent patients? N Engl J Med. 1990;322:1228-32. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Angell M. Prisoners of technology—the case of Nancy Cruzan [Editorial]. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:1226-8. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Steinbrook R. Family's rights at heart of "right-to-die" question. Los Angeles Times. 29 July 1989:Al. Google Scholar5. WeirGostin RL. Decisions to abate life-sustaining treatment for nonautonomous patients. JAMA. 1990;264:1846-53. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Orentlicher D. From the Office of the General Counsel. The right to die after Cruzan. JAMA. 1990;264:2444-6. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Annas G. Nancy Cruzan and the right to die. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:670-3. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8. Cruzan v. Harmon. 760 S.W.2d 408. Google Scholar9. Brief for petitioners. Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, No. 89-1503. Google Scholar10. Cruzan v. Harmon. No. CV384-9P, Circuit court of Missouri (Mo. Cir. Ct. Jasper County Dec 14, 1990) (Teel J.). Google Scholar11. Areen J. The legal status of consent obtained from families of adult patients to withhold or withdraw treatment. JAMA. 1987;258:22935. CrossrefGoogle Scholar12. Meisel A. The Right to Die. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1989. Google Scholar13. BuchananBrock AD. Deciding for Others. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1989. Google Scholar14. Lo B. Assessing decision-making capacity. Law Med Health Care. 1990;18:193-201. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Youngner S. Who defines futility? JAMA. 1988;260:2094-5. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forego Life-sustaining Treatment. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office; 1983. Google Scholar17. Blackhall L. Must we always use CPR? N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1281-5. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18. RuarkRaffin JT. Initiating and withdrawing life support. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:25-30. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19. Moss A. Informing patients about cardiopulmonary resuscitation: when the risks outweigh the benefits. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4:349-55. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20. McClungKamer JR. Implications of New York's do-not-resuscitate law. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:270-272. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§459.010 to 459.055 (1986). Google Scholar22. In re O'Connor. 72 N.Y.2d 517, 531 N.E.2d 607,534 N.Y.S.2d 886 (1988). Google Scholar23. In re Gardner. 534 A.2d 947 (Me. 1987). Google Scholar24. Leach v. Akron General Medical Center. 426 NE. 2d 809 (1980). Google Scholar25. In re Swan. 569 A.2d 1202 (Me. 1990). Google Scholar26. Matter of Eichner v. Dillon. 438 N.Y.S.2d, 420 N.E.2d 64 (1981). Google Scholar27. Delio v. Westchester County Med. Center. 129 A.D. 2d 1,516 N.Y.S.2d 677 (1987). Google Scholar28. EmanuelEmanuel LE. The Medical Directive. A new comprehensive advance care document. JAMA. 1989;261:3288-93. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar29. In re Farrell. 108 N.J. 335, 529 A.2d 404 (1987). Google Scholar30. MilesSingerSiegler SPM. Conflicts between patients' wishes to forgo treatment and the policies of health care facilities. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:48-50. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar31. A Report by The Hastings Center. Guidelines on the termination of life-sustaining treatment and the care of the dying. Briarcliff Manor, New York: The Hastings Center; 1987. Google Scholar32. WanzerFedermanAdelstein SDS. The physician's responsibility toward hopelessly ill patients. A second look. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:844-9. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar33. JonsenSieglerWinslade AMW. Clinical Ethics. 2d ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. , Inc.; 1986. Google Scholar34. BeauchampChildress TJ. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 3d ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989:179-80. Google Scholar35. Veatch R. An ethical framework for terminal care decisions: a new classification of patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1984;32:665-9. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar36. Coyle M. How Americans view high court. The National Law Journal. 26 February 1990:1. Google Scholar37. BeauchampChildress TJ. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 3d ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989:194-255. Google Scholar38. LantosMilesCassel JSC. The Linares affair. Law Med Health Care. 1989;17:308-15. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar39. NelsonCranford LR. Legal advice, moral paralysis and the death of Samuel Linares. Law Med Health Care. 1989;17:316-24. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar40. Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz. 378 Mass 728, 370 N.E.2d 417 (1977). Google Scholar41. Annas G. Reconciling Quinlan and Saikewicz: decision making for the terminally ill incompetent. In: Doudera AE, Peters JD ed. Legal and Ethical Aspects of Treating Critically and Terminally Ill Patients. Ann Arbor: AUPHA Press; 1982:28-62. Google Scholar42. Doing justice to life. New York Times. 27 June 1990:A18. Google Scholar43. Kolbert E. In Albany, everything important seems to happen at the last minute. New York Times. 8 July 1990:E5. Google Scholar44. Patient Self Determination Act of 1990. House of Representatives Bill 5067 (1990). Google Scholar45. Eddy D. Clinical decision making: from theory to practice. Practice policies-guidelines for methods. JAMA. 1990;263:1839-41. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar46. Eddy D. Practice policies: where do they come from? JAMA. 1990;263:1265-1275. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar47. Brook R. Practice guidelines and practicing medicine: are they compatible? JAMA. 1989;262:3027-30. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar48. Snyder L. Life, death, and the American College of Physicians: the Cruzan case [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112:802-4. LinkGoogle Scholar49. Abridged brief as amicus curiae of the American Geriatrics Society in support of the petitioner, Nancy Beth Cruzan, by her parents and co-guardians Lester L. and Joyce Cruzan. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1990; 38:570-6. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar50. Position of the American Academy of Neurology on certain aspects of the care and management of the persistent vegetative state patient. Neurology. 1989;39:125-6. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar51. MunsatStuartCranford TWR. Guidelines on the vegetative state: commentary on the American Academy of Neurology statement. Neurology. 1989;39:123-4. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar52. Solomon D. Diverging perspectives on the "right to die": a colloquy about the Cruzan case [Editorial]. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1990;38:569. CrossrefGoogle Scholar53. . Statement on withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging medical treatment. JAMA. 1986;256:471. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar54. Another right-to-die case poses new questions. New York Times. 2 January 1991:A8. Google Scholar55. LoMcLeodSaika BGG. Patient attitudes towards discussing life-sustaining treatment. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146:1613-5. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar56. SteinbrookLoMoultonSaikaHollanderVolberding RBJGHP. Preferences of homosexual men with AIDS for life-sustaining treatment. N Engl J Med. 1986;314:457-60. CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar This content is PDF only. To continue reading please click on the PDF icon. Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: From the University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco; and the Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California. For current author addresses, see end of text. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited ByPerceptions of Medical Providers on Morality and Decision-Making Capacity in Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment and SuicideWhen a Patient Refuses Life-Sustaining TreatmentsEthical Issues in Older AdultsEthical Issues in the Cardiac Intensive Care UnitInformed ConsentEthical issues in states of impaired communication with intact consciousness and languageOvermedication in bedridden patientsA national survey of Italian physicians' attitudes towards end-of-life decisions following the death of Eluana EnglaroEthics in Clinical PracticeEthical Issues of Care in the Cardiac Intensive Care UnitThe Use of Advance Care Planning to Guide Decisions About Artificial Nutrition and HydrationThe PEG "Consult"Ethical issues in the perioperative management of neurologic patientsEnteral Nutrition Support in Elderly Residents of Long-Term Care FacilitiesArtificial nutrition: dilemmas in decision-makingEthical and legal issues in palliative careElective Discontinuation of Life‐Sustaining Mechanical Ventilation on a Chronic Ventilator UnitPercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and outcome in dementiaInformed consentEthics in Clinical PracticeDying Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: Forgoing Treatment, Maintaining CareKathy Faber-Langendoen, MD and Paul N. Lanken, MDRethinking the Role of Tube Feeding in Patients with Advanced DementiaAs others see us: Physicians' perceptions of risk managersAdvance Directive Education During Pulmonary RehabilitationLong-term effects of ethics education on the quality of care for patients who have do-not-resuscitate ordersImpact of patient incompetence on decisions to use or withhold life-sustaining treatmentMedical Decision-Making in the Last Six Months of Life: Choices about Limitation of CareSurrogate Decision-Makers' Satisfaction with the Placement of Feeding Tubes in Elderly PatientsLegal and Ethical Changes in Consultation PsychiatryLegal Decisions Affecting the Limitation of Nutritional SupportOut-of-hospital resuscitation preferences of emergency health care workersAdvance Directives for Patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus InfectionDecisions about Enteral Tube Feeding among the ElderlyPosition of The American Dietetic Association: Issues in feeding the terminally ill adultThe Physician's Decision To Use Tube Feedings: The Role of the Family, the Living Will, and the Cruzan DecisionShould Patients with Alzheimer's Disease Be Told Their Diagnosis?Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: Ethical ConsiderationsBioethics in the United States: 1989–1991Lawyer's AdviceTerry J. Barnett, JDAllied to MadnessMichael W. Wooley, MDImpact of the Cruzan Case on Medical Practice 15 May 1991Volume 114, Issue 10Page: 895-901KeywordsDecision makingDrug abuseHealth careMedical ethicsPatientsPersistent vegetative statePsychiatry and mental health Issue Published: 15 May 1991 Copyright© 1991 American College of PhysiciansPDF DownloadLoading ...