No. The hospital cannot force her to have the feeding tube. The court said that every adult has a basic right to make their own medical decisions. This right is more important than the hospital's goal of keeping her alive. The judges explained that it doesn't matter if she could live for 20 more years; the *quality* of that life is what's important, and only she gets to decide if it's worth it. The court also said that choosing to let your body shut down naturally isn't the same as committing suicide.

No, and it's a tragedy she even had to ask. This judge strongly agreed with the result but wrote his own opinion to say more. He believed Elizabeth clearly wanted to die and had every right to. He felt the law should not only let her refuse treatment but should also allow doctors to help her die peacefully, without getting in trouble. He called the laws that prevent this 'old-fashioned and cruel'.

Yes, Elizabeth can say no to the feeding tube. The court says that grown-ups have the right to make their own choices about medical care, even if those choices might lead to dying sooner. This right is very important and protected by law. The court doesn't think Elizabeth is trying to kill herself; she's just letting nature take its course. The court tells the hospital they have to take out the feeding tube right away and can't put it back unless Elizabeth says it's okay.

I agree with what the other judge said, but I want to add that it's really sad Elizabeth had to fight so hard just to make choices about her own body. I think that when someone is suffering a lot and wants to die peacefully, we should help them do that instead of making them suffer more. Doctors should be allowed to help people die comfortably if that's what the person really wants, without getting in trouble for it.

Yes. A competent adult patient has a fundamental right to refuse any medical treatment, even that which may prolong life. This right of self-determination and privacy is paramount to the interests of medical professionals or the state. The court reasoned that the right to refuse medical treatment is protected by both the state and federal constitutions and is not limited to patients who are terminally ill. Critically, the court held that a patient's assessment of their own quality of life is a significant, if not the most significant, consideration, and may outweigh the state's abstract interest in preserving life. A decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment based on a severely diminished quality of life is a personal, moral, and philosophical choice that belongs to the patient alone, not to physicians or courts. The court distinguished refusing treatment from suicide, stating that allowing nature to take its course is not an affirmative act of self-destruction, and therefore honoring a patient's refusal does not constitute aiding a suicide.

Yes. The author agrees with the majority's conclusion but writes separately to argue that Elizabeth Bouvia has an absolute right to die and should be able to enlist assistance from the medical profession to do so with ease and dignity. He characterizes the state's law against aiding suicide as archaic and inhumane in this context. The concurrence asserts that the right to die is an integral part of the right to control one's own destiny. It calls for society to deal realistically with the plight of individuals whose suffering makes death a welcome respite, suggesting that the medical profession, freed from legal reprisal, should be able to assist in such cases.

Yes. The right to refuse medical treatment is a basic and fundamental right protected by both state and federal constitutions as part of the right of privacy. This right extends to all medical treatment, including life-sustaining nutrition and hydration. The patient's right to self-determination regarding medical care is paramount and must be respected, even if exercising this right may hasten death. The court holds that Bouvia, as a competent adult, has the right to refuse the nasogastric tube and any other unwanted medical treatment. The quality of life considerations are relevant and ultimately a personal decision for the patient. The court rejects arguments that Bouvia is attempting suicide, stating that allowing nature to take its course is not equivalent to suicide. The hospital and medical staff are ordered to remove the nasogastric tube immediately and prohibited from reinserting it without Bouvia's consent.

I concur with the majority opinion but write separately to emphasize the tragedy that Bouvia has had to go to such lengths to obtain relief from her suffering. The law and medical profession should assist individuals in Bouvia's situation to die with dignity if that is their informed choice, rather than forcing them to endure prolonged suffering. The right to die is an integral part of our right to control our own destinies. The medical profession should be free to accommodate such requests without threat of legal repercussions. Society needs to deal more realistically and compassionately with those for whom death is a welcome respite from suffering.

Bouvia v. Superior Court

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot