Jehovah's Witness Case Summary

"Persistent vegetative state is a specific clinical diagnosis for a patient who is permanently unconscious. All thought, all memory, all ability to interact with the world around them in any way is gone" (LLP). William H. Colby who argued the case for Nancy and her family stated this in his opening statement during the hearing. His petitioners included Nancy herself, and her family and friends. (LLP) Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in a serious automobile accident in 1983, which left her in a vegetative state. Her life was sustained for a few weeks before the question came to, how do we maintain life? With no interaction with the outside world, and no signs of getting better, Cruzan's parents attempted to end her nutrition and hydration tube.
The state's main goal is to preserve human life, regardless the opinion. In the case of Jehovah’s Witness cases, the state would take steps to override their religious belief, to better the chance of life. His statement is that whether a state can order a person to receive medical treatment when the family does not wish it, when it overrides evidence about the wishes of the patient, and the state has no justification besides their general interest in life. He also concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the liberty of individuals, whether conscious or unconscious, from such invasion of the state.
Although it was said she could live many more years with machine support, the doctors stated there was no chance of recovery. (Gaudin) The family also had been paying expensive medical bills because of her need for machine support, and they were struggling financially. Nancy was not the only child of her parents, so expenses were piling high. (LLP) Her family believed that they had clear evidence that Nancy would not want to be in the state she was in. Many of Nancy's friends, including Nancy's housemate, had verbal proof that a year earlier, she had stated she would not want to live in a vegetative unresponsive state unless 'she was half normal'. (Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech 1) However, to the court this was not enough convincing proof. Justice Sandra O' Conner stated that this could be considered assisted suicide. It was said that because a competent person cannot refuse food or water in a hospital setting, an irrational person should not be allowed to either. (LLP) However, if a patient had the want to die due to incredible pain, deformity, etc., they could refuse a feeding tube. The question in term is how we decide if a person is irrational or not. Do specific people decide the severity of the pain or the quality of life? (Gaudin