{"title":"Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health.","authors":"Tony Mauro","doi":"10.4135/9781452240138.N67","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452240138.N67","url":null,"abstract":"The parents of Nancy Cruzan, a Missouri woman in a persistent vegetative state, petitioned to be allowed to order the termination of her artificially administered hydration and nutrition. A state trial court's authorization of the termination was reversed by the Missouri Supreme Court, which ruled that no one may order an end to life sustaining treatment for an incompetent patient in the absence of a valid living will or clear and convincing evidence of the patient's wishes. Cruzan was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed (5-4) the Missouri decision, on the grounds that an incompetent person does not have the same constitutionally protected right as a competent person to refuse life sustaining treatment. In such cases a state may, but is not required to, recognize a family's decision making role, and may require clear and convincing proof of a patient's determination to forgo hydration and nutrition.","PeriodicalId":84004,"journal":{"name":"West's Supreme Court reporter","volume":"110 1","pages":"2841-92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1990-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70592551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Washington v. Harper.","authors":"V. Harper, Washington V Harper","doi":"10.1037/e517292006-001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/e517292006-001","url":null,"abstract":"Walter Harper, a mentally ill state prisoner, challenged the constitutionality of Washington's prison policy, contending that the involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs without a judicial hearing deprived him of due process. State law permits involuntary medication only when a special committee of mental health professionals and prison officials finds that the inmate suffers from a mental disorder, when treatment is in his medical interest, and when the prisoner poses a danger to himself or others. Noting that Harper has a liberty interest in being free from the arbitrary administration of drugs, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the state's policy reasonably related to its legitimate interest in avoiding possible dangers posed by violent, mentally ill inmates. Moreover, due process does not require a judicial hearing before treatment, because the inmate's interests are better served where the decision to medicate is made by medical professionals and not by judges.","PeriodicalId":84004,"journal":{"name":"West's Supreme Court reporter","volume":"110 1","pages":"1028-56"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1990-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57874487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}