Cruzan, co-petitioned by her parents v.

Missouri Dept of
Health represented by Director

Re: Right to Refusal of Artificial Life Support

FACTS: On the night of Jan. 11, 1983, Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in an
automobile accident where she was driving her car, and late into the night, she was
found lying face down in a ditch without cardiac or respiratory evidence. She was
transferred to a hospital in an unconscious state after experiencing at least 15 minutes
of anoxia or “absence of oxygen” causing irrevocable brain damage, according to the
paramedics. In the succeeding 3 weeks, it was noted she was under a coma.
Thereafter, she was in a persistent and permanent “vegetable state” where, at least, she
was able to orally ingest nutrition. In order to ease the process and expedite recovery,
an artificial feeding system was installed. In “vegetable state”, it is meant that motor
reflexes are present, while it reveals no evidence of significant cognitive function.

After it had become apparent that Cruzan could ever virtually regain her mental
faculties, her parents decided on the termination of her artificial nutrition and
hydration. The hospital staff refused to honor their request without court approval.
The parents acquired state a state authorization of termination, where the Court has
found that under Nancy’s condition, she had the right, under the State and Federal
Constitutions, to withdraw “death prolonging procedures”. Also, evidence of a serious
conversation between Nancy and a housemate-friend, while the former was 25, that
she wouldn’t want to continue her life, if sick or injured, unless she reaches halfway,
which normally suggests, that given her present condition, she wouldn’t want to
continue artificial nutrition and hydration, was considered by the court as well.

ISSUE: W/N the State has violated Cruzan’s Constitutional right of due process and
liberty to refuse unwanted medical support?

RULING: In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court has decided that Cruzan was protected by
the Due Process Clause, which provides, that with “clear and specific evidence” of
her voluntary wises to discontinue artificial feeding, Though issues where the
conversation between Nancy and a housemate, and the whether or not the decision
made by the parents constitutes as a valid decision, nonetheless, the Supreme Court
ruled that Cruzan was incompetent in giving clear and specific evidence/testimony
that she no longer wished artificial support.

Although the Court interpreted this Cruzan case as recognizing a right to refuse
medical treatment, the Court found no constitutional basis for a right to assisted
suicide, since she was incapacitated to provide legitimate consent.