Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T21:13:18.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Twenty-Five Years after Quinlan: A Review of the Jurisprudence of Death and Dying

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Norman L. Cantor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ever since the 1960s, when medical science became capable of prolonging the dying process beyond bounds that many patients would find acceptable, people have sought “death with dignity,” or “a natural death,” or “a good death.” Once debilitation from a fatal affliction has reached a personally intolerable point, dying patients have sought to control the manner and timing of death via diverse techniques. Some sought the disconnection of life-sustaining medical interventions, such as respirators and dialysis machines. Beyond freedom from unwelcome interventions, some patients intent on avoiding suffering sought access to pain relief medication—even in dosages posing some risk (perhaps even a certainty) of hastening death. Other dying patients sought access to deep sedation, even knowing that they would never emerge from the resultant unconsciousness. Still other patients voluntarily refused to eat or drink or to accept artificial nutrition and hydration.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , Summer 2001 , pp. 182 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

In re Quinlan, 355 A.2d 647 (N.J. 1976) Death and dying jurisprudence actually predates Quinlan, but Quinlan was a landmark case. See infra note 7.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Foody v. Manchester Memorial Hospital, 482 A.2d 713 (Conn. 1984). John F. Kennedy Hospital v. Bludworth, 452 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1984). In re Severns, 421 A.2d 1334 (Del. 1980).Google Scholar
See, e.g., In re Conroy, 486 A.2d 1209 (N.J. 1985); In re Torres, 357 N.W.2d 332 (Minn. 1984). In re Lydia E. Hall Hospital, 455 N.YS.2d 706 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1982).Google Scholar
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).Google Scholar
McKay v. Bergstedt, 801 P.2d 617 (Nev. 1990). In re Farrell, 529 A.2d 404 (N.J. 1987). Satz v. Perlmutter, 362 So. 2d 160 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978).Google Scholar
A blood transfusion involves a relatively slight physical invasion, but sometimes entails a severe insult to a patient's conscientious religious scruples. In Jehovah's Witnesses' cases predating Quinlan, the courts reached mixed results — sometimes upholding and sometimes rejecting a patient's wish to reject treatment. See Cantor, N.L., “A Patient's Decision to Decline Life-Saving Medical Treatment: Bodily Integrity Versus the Preservation of Life,” Rutgers Law Review, 26 (1973): 228–64, at 230–36. Post-Quinlan, courts have uniformly upheld an adult's prerogative to reject a blood transfusion. See Public Health Trust v. Wons, 541 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1989). Fosmire v. Nicoleau, 551 N.E.2d 77 (N.Y. 1990); Goldberg, C.K., “Choosing Life After Death: Respecting Religious Beliefs and Moral Conventions in Near Death Decisions,” Syracuse Law Review, 39 (1988): 1197–265.Google Scholar
In re Conroy, 486 A.2d 1209 (N.J. 1985). Fosmire v. Nicoleau, 551 N.E.2d 77 (N.Y. 1990). See Peters, P.G., “The State's Interest in the Preservation of Life: From Quinlan to Cruzan,” Ohio State Law Journal, 50 (1989): 891–1010.Google Scholar
Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 370 N.E.2d 417 (Mass. 1977). In re Colyer, 660 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1983). Bartling v. Superior Court, 209 Cal. Rptr. 220 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984).Google Scholar
Daar, J.F., “A Clash at the Bedside: Patient Autonomy v. A Physician's Professional Conscience,” Hastings Law Journal, 44 (1993): 1241–95.Google Scholar
Application of Georgetown College, 331 F.2d 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1964).Google Scholar
Fosmire v. Nicoleau, 551 N.E.2d 77 (N.Y. 1990). In re Dubreuil, 603 So. 2d 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).Google Scholar
Siegler, M. and Weisbard, A.J., “Against the Emerging Stream: Should Fluids and Nutritional Support Be Discontinued?,” Archives of Internal Medicine, 145 (1985): 129; Callahan, D., “On Feeding the Dying,” Hastings Center Report, 13 (Oct. 1983):22.Google Scholar
See, e.g., In re Conroy, 486 A.2d 1209, 1236 (N.J. 1985). Matter of Mary Hier, 464 N.E.2d 959, 960–65 (Mass. App. Ct. 1984); Barber v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. Rptr. 484, 491–94 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1983).Google Scholar
Satz v. Perlmutter, 363 So. 2d 160, 162 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978); Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 370 N.E.2d 417 (Mass. 1977).Google Scholar
Matter of Peter, 529 A.2d 419, 425 (N.J. 1987); Thor v. Superior Court, 855 P.2d 375 (Cal. 1993).Google Scholar
Compare Zant v. Prevatte, 286 S.E.2d 715 (Ga. 1982) and Singletary v. Costello, 665 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. App. 1996) (both finding a prisoner's right to hunger strike) with Laurie v. Senecal, 666 A.2d 806 (R.I. 1995), In re Caulk, 480 A.2d 93 (N.H. 1984), Van Holden v. Chapman, 450 N.Y.S.2d 623 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982) (all rejecting any such right). Sunshine, S.C., “Should a Hunger-Striking Prisoner Be Allowed to Die?,” Note, Boston College Law Review, 25 (1984): 423–58.Google Scholar
For a fuller account of this position, see Cantor, N.L. and Thomas, G.C. III, “The Legal Bounds of Physician Conduct Hastening Death,” Buffalo Law Review, 48 (2000): 83–173, at 98–107.Google Scholar
In re Brooks (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1987) (unpublished opinion). In re Plaza Health and Rehabilitation Center (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984) (unpublished opinion). Matter of lone Bayer (N.C. 1987) (unpublished opinion). Byock, I., “Patient Refusal of Nutrition and Hydration: Walking the Ever-Finer Line,” American Journal of Hospice & Palliative Care (March 1995): 8; Eddy, D., “A Conversation with My Mother,” JAMA, 272 (July 20, 1994): 179.Google Scholar
See Sorum, P.C., “Limiting Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation,” Albany Law Review, 57 (1994): 617–47; “CEJA Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of DNR Orders,” JAMA, 265 (1991):1868.Google Scholar
See Koch, K.A., Meyers, B.W., and Sandroni, S., “Analysis of Power in Medical Decision Making: An Argument for Physician Autonomy,” Law, Medicine & Health Care, 20, no. 4 (1992):320–26; Jecker, N., “Knowing When to Stop: The Limits of Medicine,” Hastings Center Report, 21 (1991): 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veatch, R. and Spicer, C., “Medically Futile Care: The Role of the Physician in Setting Limits,” American Journal of Law & Medicine, 18 (1992): 15–36; Lantos, J. et al., “The Illusion of Futility in Clinical Practice,” American Journal of Medicine, 87 (July 1989): 81.Google Scholar
See Menikoff, J., “Demanded Medical Care,” Arizona State Law Journal, 30 (1998): 1091–130.Google Scholar
See Veatch, and Spicer, supra note 22; Cantor, N.L., “Can Healthcare Providers Obtain Judicial Intervention Against Surrogates Who Demand ‘Medically Inappropriate’ Life Support for Incompetent Patients?,” Critical Care Medicine, 24, no. 5 (1996): 883–87, at 884.Google Scholar
In re Wanglie, Px-91-283 (4th Judicial District, Hennepin County Minnesota, July 1991).Google Scholar
Gilgunn v. Massachusetts General Hospital (Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County, April 21, 1995).Google Scholar
Causey v. St. Francis Medical Center, 719 So. 2d 1072 (La. Ct. App. 1998). See also Menikoff, , supra note 23, at 1125–26.Google Scholar
Velez v. Bethune, 466 S.E.2d 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) Rideout v. Rideout (Pa. Common Pleas 1995) (unpublished opinion).Google Scholar
Matter of Baby K., 832 F. Supp. 1022 (E.D. Va. 1993), aff'd 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994), cert. denied 115 S. Ct. 91 (1994).Google Scholar
See Rich, B., “A Prescription for the Pain: The Emerging Standards of Care for Pain Management,” William Mitchell Law Review, 26 (2000): 1–91. Symposium, “Appropriate Management of Pain: Addressing the Clinical, Legal, and Regulatory Barriers,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 24 (1996): 285–421.Google Scholar
New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, When Death is Sought: Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Medical Context (New York: New York State Task Force on Life and Law, 1994).Google Scholar
See Latham, S.R., “Aquinas and Morphine: Notes on Double Effect at the End of Life,” DePaul Journal of Health Care Law, 1 (1997): 625; Thomasma, D.C., “Ensuring a Good Death” Bioethics Forum, 13, no. 4 (Winter 1997): 7–15, at 14.Google Scholar
Cantor, and Thomas, , supra note 18, at 126–31.Google Scholar
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997); Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997).Google Scholar
Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 808 (1997).Google Scholar
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 780–81 (1997) (Souter, J., concurring); id. at 750–52 (Stevens, J., concurring). id. at 736–38 (O'Connor, J., concurring). id. at 791 (Breyer, J., concurring).Google Scholar
Cantor, and Thomas, , supra note 18, at 116–20.Google Scholar
Fleischman, A.R., “Ethical Issues in Pediatric Pain Management and Terminal Sedation,” Commentary, Journal of Pain & Symptom Management, 15 (1998): 260–65, at 261.Google ScholarPubMed
Wennberg, R.N., Terminal Choices: Euthanasia, Suicide, and the Right to Die (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdsman, 1989): at 105.Google Scholar
Orentlicher, D., “The Supreme Court and Terminal Sedation: Rejecting Assisted Suicide, Embracing Euthanasia,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 24 (1997): 947–68; Robertson, J., “Respect for Life in Bioethical Dilemmas—The Case of Physician-Assisted Suicide,” Cleveland State Law Review, 45 (1997): 329–43.Google Scholar
See also Cantor, and Thomas, , supra note 18, at 145–51.Google Scholar
Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996). Quill v. Koppell, 80 F.3d 716 (2d Cir. 1996).Google Scholar
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997); Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997).Google Scholar
Krischer v. McIver, 697 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1997); People v. Kevorkian, 527 N.W.2d 714 (Mich. 1994); Donaldson v. Van de Kamp, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 59 (Calif. Ct. App. 1992).Google Scholar
See Pratt, D.A., “Too Many Physicians: Physician-Assisted Suicide after Glucksberg/Quill,” Albany Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 9 (1999): 161–234, at 200–01, 233; Quill, T. et al., “Care of the Hopelessly Ill: Proposed Clinical Criteria for Physician-Assisted Suicide,” N. Engl. J. Med., 327 (1992): 1380.Google Scholar
CompareGomez, C., Regulating Death: Euthanasia and the Case of the Netherlands (New York: The Free Press, 1991) (opposing physician-assisted suicide) with Griffiths, J., Bood, A., and Weyers, H., Euthanasia & Law in the Netherlands (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1998) (favoring physician-assisted suicide).Google Scholar
E.g., Robertson, J.A., “Second Thoughts on Living Wills,” Hastings Center Report, 21, no. 5 (November 1991): 6–9; McGee, G., “Paper Shields: Why Advance Directives Still Don't Work,” Princeton Journal of Bioethics, 1, no. 1 (1998): 42–56.Google Scholar
Dresser, R., “Confronting the Near Irrelevance of Advance Directives,” Journal of Clinical Ethics, 5, no. 1 (1994): 55–56; Dresser, R. and Robertson, J.A., “Quality of Life and Non-Treatment Decisions for Incompetent Persons,” Law, Medicine & Health Care, 17 (1989): 234–44.Google Scholar
This language is from a model used by Choice in Dying, a national organization promoting death with dignity (visited June 1, 2000) <http://www.esinteractive.com/ripp/wills-living.html>..>Google Scholar
Cantor, N.L., “Making Advance Directives Meaningful,” Psychology, Pubic Policy, and Law, 4 (1998): 629–52, at 646–52.Google Scholar
See Lerner, M.J., “State Natural Death Acts: Illusory Protection of Individuals' Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions,” Harvard Journal of Legislation, 29 (1992): 175–221.Google Scholar
See Cantor, N.L., Advance Directives and the Pursuit of Death with Dignity (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993): at 48–50; Wolf, S.M., “Honoring Broader Directives,” Hastings Center Report, 21, no. 5 (September 1991): S8–S9; Matter of Tavel, 661 A.2d 1061 (Del. 1995). But see Wright v. Johns Hopkins Health Systems, 728 A.2d 166, 176–79 (Md. 1999); First Healthcare Corp, v. Rettinger, 467 S.E.2d 243 (N.C. 1996); HCA v. Miller, #14-98-00582-CV (Tex. Ct. App. 2000) (suggesting that statutes such as natural death acts or living will acts provide the exclusive route for removal of life support from now-incompetent patients).Google Scholar
Matter of Westchester County Medical Center, 531 N.E.2d 607 (N.Y. 1988); DeGrella v. Elston, 858 S.W.2d 698 (Ky. 1993); Mack v. Mack, 618 A.2d 744 (Md. 1993); Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. 1988). See also In re Gardner, 534 A.2d 947 (Me. 1987). Note, however, that the narrow approaches have been changed by judicial interpretation in Missouri (Warren v. Wheeler, 858 S.W.2d 263 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)) and by statute in Maryland. See Hoffmann, D.E., “The Maryland Health Care Decisions Act: Achieving the Right Balance?,” Maryland Law Review, 53 (1994): 1064–135.Google Scholar
Spahn v. Eisenberg, 543 N.W.2d 485 (Wis. 1997); In re Martin, 538 N.W.2d 399 (Mich. 1995).Google Scholar
See Filene, P., In the Arms of Others: A Cultural History of the Right to Die in America (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1998): at 109–10.Google Scholar
Courts seem to apply the clear and convincing standard with less rigor if the patient is permanently unconscious. See In re Gardner, 534 A.2d 947, 952–53 (Me. 1987). Nancy Cruzan herself benefited from this tendency. Upon remand from the Supreme Court, her parents presented additional evidence of her expressed wishes and a trial court authorized the removal of life support. Missouri courts have also interpreted Cruzan narrowly, as applying only to removal of artificial nutrition and hydration. See Warren v. Wheeler, 858 S.W.2d 263 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).Google Scholar
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 370 N.E.2d 417, 423 (Mass. 1977); John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital v. Bludworth, 452 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1984). In re Colyer, 660 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1983).Google Scholar
In re Fiori, 673 A.2d 905 (Pa. 1995); Matter of Tavel, 661 A.2d 1061 (Del. 1995); Estate of Longeway, 549 N.E.2d 292, 299–300 (Ill. 1989); Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital, 497 N.E.2d 626, 631–32 (Mass. 1986).Google Scholar
In re Jobes, 529 A.2d 434 (N.J. 1987); In re Fiori, 673 A.2d 905 (Pa. 1995).Google Scholar
See Wicclair, M.R., Ethics and the Elderly (New York: Oxford, 1993): at 56–60; Estate of Longeway, 549 N.E.2d 292, 306 (Ill. 1989) (Ward, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
See Pollock, S.G., “Life and Death Decisions: Who Makes Them and by What Standards?,” Rutgers Law Review, 41 (1989): 505–40, at 518–22.Google Scholar
In re Grant, 747 P.2d 445 (Wash. 1987); In re Conroy, 486 A.2d 1209 (N.J. 1985); In re Rosebush, 491 N.W.2d 633 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).Google Scholar
See New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, When Others Must Choose: Deciding for Patients without Capacity (New York: New York State Task Force on Life and the Law, 1992): at 55; Strasser, M., “Incompetents and the Right to Die: In Search of Meaningful Standards,” Kentucky Law Journal, 83 (1995): 733–91, at 778.Google Scholar
Dresser, R., “Missing Persons: Legal Perspectives of Incompetent Persons,” Rutgers Law Review, 46 (1994): 609–704, at 666–91.Google Scholar
Peters, , supra note 8, at 942. See Strasser, supra note 64, at 744–45.Google Scholar
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical Behavioral Research, Deciding to Forgo Life-Sustaining Treatment: Ethical, Medical and Legal Issues in Treatment Decisions (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov't Printing Office, 1983): at 135–36.Google Scholar
Rasmussen v. Fleming, 741 P.2d 674, 684 (Ariz. 1987); Barber v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. Rptr. 484, 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983); cf. In re R.H., 622 N.E.2d 1071, 1076 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993) (mentioning family interests as a legitimate consideration under a substituted judgment formula).Google Scholar
President's Commission, supra note 67, at 135.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Singer, P.A. et al., “Quality End-of-Life Care: Patients' Perspectives,” JAMA, 281 (1999): 163; Lindgren, J., “Death by Default,” Law & Contemporary Problems, 56 (1993):185–254, at 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen v. Fleming, 741 P.2d 674, 688–89 (Ariz. 1987); Barber v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. Rptr. 484, 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983); In re Fiori, 673 A.2d 905, 912 n.11 (Pa. 1985); In re Grant, 747 P.2d 445, 451, 457 (Wash. 1987).Google Scholar
See Cantor, N.L., “Discarding Substituted Judgment and Best Interests: Toward a Constructive Preference Standard for Dying, Previously Competent Patients without Advance Instructions,” Rutgers Law Review, 48 (1996): 1193–272, at 1257–72. Lindgren, supra note 70.Google Scholar
See Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 370 N.E.2d 417 (Mass. 1977); In re Grant, 747 P.2d 445 (Wash. 1987); Lindgren, , supra note 70.Google Scholar
Danis, M. et al., “Patients and Families' Preferences for Medical Intensive Care,” JAMA, 260 (1988): 797; Hoffmann, D.E. et al., “The Dangers of Directives or the False Security of Forms,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 24 (1996): 5–17, at 10–11; Singer, et al., supra note 70; Pearlman, R.A. et al., “Insights Pertaining to Patient Assessments of States Worse than Death,” Journal of Clinical Ethics, 4 (1993): 35.Google Scholar
Kadish, S.H., “Letting Patients' Die: Legal and Moral Reflections,” California Law Review, 80 (1992): 857–88, at 882.Google Scholar
Cantor, , supra note 50, at 646–52.Google Scholar
Cantor, supra note 72, at 1265; Schrode, K.E., “Life in Limbo, Revising Policies for Permanently Unconscious Patients,” Houston Law Review, 31 (1995): 1609–79, at 1648–53; Lindgren, supra note 70; Angell, M., “After Quinlan: The Dilemma of the Persistent Vegetative State,” N. Engl. J. Med., 330 (1994): 1524, 1525.Google Scholar
See Anderson v. St. Francis Hospital, 671 N.E.2d 225 (Ohio 1996); Strasser, M., “Wrongful Life, Wrongful Birth, Wrongful Death, and the Right to Refuse Treatment,” Missouri Law Review, 64 (1999): 29–76; Milani, A., “Better Off Dead than Disabled?: Should Courts Recognize a Wrongful Living Cause of Action?,” Washington & Lee Law Review, 54 (1997): 149–228.Google Scholar