Summary Of Bouvia Vs. Superior Court Case

Bouvia v. Superior Court case. Should patients be allowed to make the decision of ending their own lives, and/or to refuse life saving treatment– if mentally competent? Today I will cover, summarize, and decide my position on the Bouvia v. Superior Court case. The plaintiff, Elizabeth Bouvia, was incapable of taking care of herself, had deteriorating health issues, and eventually was given medical treatment determined to be life saving against her own free will. Which ignores her right to refuse medical treatment. She wished to end her own life, which she expressed to her physicians and doctors. Then, when relief treatment for existing conditions was administered, the court prohibited the procedure and/or any similar. When is it morally permissible
While she was in this hospital, a feeding tube was forcibly administered, “In 1986, Bouvia, then 28 years old and suffering from severe cerebral palsy, sought the removal of a nasogastric feeding tube inserted against her will by the medical staff of the High Desert Hospital.Contending that she had a right to refuse any and all medical treatment”(1079, Bouvia v. County of Los Angeles). She did not want the treatment, and had a moral reason to deny it. And not only that, it is within her rights to not have treatment forced upon her. Eventually, she was discharged from the hospital. She then went to a “private convalescent hospital”, despite the treatment given to help Bouvia, which proved unsuccessful in helping her. Her suffering only continued, “Bouvia entered a private convalescent hospital agreeing not to attempt starvation.In the months which followed, however, plaintiff continued to lose weight and suffered increasing discomfort from arthritis and other ailments.”(1080, Los Angeles). She was not improving from their efforts, and quality of life really could not be
She earned a college degree”(1136, BOUVIA v. Los Angeles County). It is not like she does not know what is going on, she has a degree which many people who are physically mobile do not have. It just seems she has accepted that the state she is currently in is undesirable, and others should not have the right to force her to continue to live in that state. After my research and overview of this case. This is the court's order based on the information in the case, “directing real parties in interest forthwith to remove the nasogastric tube from petitioner, Elizabeth Bouvia's body, and (2) prohibiting any and all of the real parties in interest from replacing or aiding in replacing said tube or any other or similar device in or on petitioner without her consent.”(1146, Bouvia v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES). I agree with the court's ruling, the hospital had no right to force treatment on Bouvia. She knew what she wanted, and it was not to rely on a tube to keep her