Case Brief 4:

Bouvia V. Glenchur

Citation:

Bouvia V. Glenchur

179 Cal App.3d 1128.

Nature of the Case:

This was a Court of Appeals of California, Second appellate district division of the United
States. This is a case relating to the civil and constitutional rights of the patient Bouvia.

Facts:

The petitioner was a 28-year-old woman. Since birth, she has been burdened with and
experienced extreme cerebral paralysis. She is a quadriplegic. She is presently a patient at a
public hospital kept up by one of the real parties in interest, the County of Los Angeles. Other
parties are doctors, medical attendants, and the clinical and care staff utilized by the County of
Los Angeles. The Petitioner’s physical impairments of paralysis and quadriplegia have advanced
to where she is bedridden. Aside from a couple of fingers of one hand and some slight head and
facial developments, she is motionless. She is truly vulnerable and entirely unfit to take care of
herself. She is reliant upon others for every last bit of her needs. These incorporate taking care
of, washing, cleaning, toileting, turning, and helping her with end and other substantial
capacities. She can't stand or sit upstanding in bed or a wheelchair. She lies in bed and should do
so the entire life. She experiences likewise degenerative and seriously devastating joint pain. She
is in persistent agony. Another tube forever connected to her chest naturally infuses her with
occasional portions of morphine which assuages a few, yet not every last bit of her physical
torment and inconvenience. The trial court dismissed her suit by saying that with the help of that
tube she can live more than 15 to 20 years. So the petitioners appealed.

Issue: whether the petitioner (Bouvia) has the right to terminate her medical treatment?

Holding: The court held that without the consent of the petitioner you cannot keep that tube in
her chest. If she doesn’t want to continue the treatment then her attorney or guardian should
write in a letter and should be signed by her with the help of her mouth or by her fingers.

Rationale: The court said that the trial court made an error by dismissing the petitioner's plea of
removing the tube. The court said that no authority should go against the consent of the
individual.