In re Martin.

Abstract

The Supreme Court of Michigan held that the testimony and affidavit of the wife of an incompetent but conscious patient did not constitute clear and convincing evidence of the patient's pre-injury decision to decline life-sustaining medical treatment. A subjective analysis is applied which allows treatment to be withheld if it is clear that the particular patient would have refused treatment under the circumstances involved. The court reasoned that prior statements by the patient to the effect that he would not want to receive life-sustaining treatment if he was in a serious accident, had disabling or terminal illness, or was dying of old age, and that he did not want to live "like a vegetable," did not rise to the clear and convincing level of evidence. Rather, only when a patient's prior statements clearly illustrate a serious, well thought out, consistent decision to refuse treatment under exact or highly similar circumstances as those present, should medical treatment be withheld.