Court Rulings on Euthanasia

Author: A.L.L.


American Life League

A society will be judged on how it treats those in the dawn of life, those in the twilight of life, and those in the shadow of life.

                                                                                        Senator Hubert Humphrey.

Anti-Life Philosophy.

They are dictating how medicine should be practiced. You know the court is dominated by religion ... 'Life is sanctity, this and that ...' The problem with medicine today is that it's under the Dark-Age mentality of mystical religion, which has permeated medicine to the core since Christianity took over.

                                                                            Jack ("The Dripper") Kevorkian.[1]


The Courts: Engine for Social Change.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decisively rejected its role as the interpreter of the Constitution and has transmogrified itself into the greatest engine for social change our country has ever seen.

The people will not accept the far-Left agenda, because it flies in the face of common sense and decency. And the state legislatures are still close enough to the people, in general, to reflect this viewpoint. Even Congress, populated by reelection-minded political animals, wouldn't dream of enacting most of the pro-abortion, pro-sodomy Neoliberal wish list.

So who is responsible for the social revolution that has been sweeping our country since 1965?

The United States Supreme Court.

The Court started the euthanasia 'ball' rolling with its 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, in which it defined for the first time a mythical 'privacy right' that had somehow escaped the notice of the entire system of government for two centuries. This decision held that married couples should have unrestricted access to artificial contraceptives.

The Paramount 'Right to Privacy.'

The 'right' to privacy is critical to Neoliberal thinking. Anti-lifers find themselves compelled to kill preborn babies and bothersome newborns and adults, engage in sodomy, and perform other unspeakable acts. Such activities cannot be justified by any stretch of the imagination, so they must be hidden.

This privacy 'right' was extended drastically in the Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. And now, the 'right to privacy' is being used to obtain euthanasia on demand.

Since 1973, many courts have dealt with the active and passive euthanasia question, and the overall pattern is an ominous shift towards the elimination of those whose lives are judged to be "devoid of meaning."

Description of the Euthanasia Cases.


The following court cases describe with crystal clarity the trend from abortion on demand to infanticide to passive euthanasia to active euthanasia. As time passes, the requirements for "rubber-stamping" euthanasia inevitably become looser and looser, just as they did for abortion. The final result will be, as the Hemlock Society desires, the 'right' to kill oneself at any time, for any reason, or the 'right' to demand that a licensed euthanasiast do the job for you.

In other words, euthanasia on demand.

Next will come the elimination of those who are deemed to be a burden to individuals or society. And, ultimately, we will begin eliminating 'useless eaters' unless we can stop this death machine in its tracks.

Listing of the Cases.

The first three decisions described below are probably acceptable in their own right to most anti-euthanasia activists. The persons described could have only been kept alive by truly extraordinary measures.

However, these three cases still fit into the overall pattern of eventually classifying even food and water as "extraordinary measures."

The 16 cases described in this chapter are listed below.


Case # 1: Karen Ann Quinlan 1976
Case # 2: Joseph Saikewicz 1977
Case # 3: Brother Joseph Fox 1981
Case # 4: Baby Doe of Bloomington 1982
Case # 5: Clarence Herbert 1983
Case # 6: Claire Conroy 1985
Case # 7: Helen Corbett 1986
Case # 8: Paul Brophy 1986
Case # 9: Elizabeth Bouvia 1986
Case #10: Hector Rodas 1987
Case #11: Nancy Ellen Jobes 1987
Case #12: Marcia Gray 1987
Case #13: Ione Bayer 1987
Case #14: Mary O'Connor 1988
Case #15: Nancy Cruzan 1988
Case #16: Carrie Coons 1989

CASE #1 
Karen Ann Quinlan 
Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1976[2]

Karen Ann Quinlan, 21, stopped breathing for unknown reasons and suffered irreversible brain damage. She lapsed into a deep coma, but continued to show minimal brain activity. Because of this brain activity, she could not be legally declared dead, and so was kept alive on a respirator. Quinlan's father petitioned the Court to allow her doctors to let her die by disconnecting her from her life support systems.

The Court ordered that Quinlan be removed from the respirator, if her doctors and the hospital agreed. The appended opinion expanded the 'right to privacy' found in the Roe v. Wade decision to include the right to refuse treatment. Essentially, the Court held that a patient no longer able to communicate may now exercise this 'right' through a family member or duly authorized guardian.

Joseph Saikewicz
Supreme Court of Massachusetts, 1977

Joseph Saikewicz had been severely retarded since birth and was confined to a mental institution. He had developed incurable leukemia, and his doctors were willing to prolong his life with standard chemotherapy. His guardian asked that he not be treated.

The Court held that the pain and fear that Saikewicz would suffer far outweighed any benefit of treatment to him. The ruling revolved upon on what he would have said if he could have spoken in his own behalf. The Court extended the Quinlan decision by stating that persons who have never been able to make judgments for themselves have the 'right to die.'

Later decisions in the Massachusetts court held that families and physicians could make such judgments without even going to court.

Brother Joseph Fox
New York Court of Appeals, 1981

An 83-year old monk, Brother Joseph Fox, lapsed into a permanent coma during surgery. His superior stated that he would not want his life extended by 'extraordinary measures,' and said that, in accordance with Catholic doctrine, his respirator could be removed.

The court found that Brother Fox's refusal of treatment (expressed while he was still conscious) was legally binding, and ordered the hospital to disconnect the respirator and let him die.

Baby Doe
Supreme Court of Indiana, 1982[3]

This pitiful case really crossed the line between what most pro-life activists find to be justifiable and unjustifiable regarding euthanasia.

It revolved around a tiny baby boy born with Down's syndrome and a breathing defect that hampered his swallowing as well. The defect could have been corrected easily with surgery, and literally hundreds of couples begged to adopt him.

However, the Court held that the parent's right to privacy was more important than this born baby's right to live! The baby died in agony just days before the appeal reached the United States Supreme Court.

This heartless judgement caused so much consternation that a Federal law was passed in 1984 that prohibits the withholding of "medically indicated" treatment from any disabled newborn.

However, a later judgement in New York (the Baby Jane Doe case) found that parents of an infant with spina bifida and other non-life threatening disabilities could choose to "treat" their little baby "passively" with adequate food, antibiotics, and dressings. In other words, all the parents are legally obligated to do is keep the child comfortable and hope that he or she dies.

Clarence Herbert
California Court of Appeals, 1983

55-year old Clarence Herbert suffered a heart attack during surgery and lapsed into a permanent coma. His family asked doctors to remove his respirator, which they did, and they then discontinued intravenous feeding. A week later, he died. Nurses called the District Attorney's office, and doctors Neil Barber and Robert Nejdl were charged with murder.

The doctors were convicted, but the appeals court reversed the ruling on the grounds that withholding life support and food was a passive omission, not an aggressive action designed to murder.

This same rationale is used to justify ten thousand cases of euthanasia every year in Holland.

Claire Conroy
New Jersey Supreme Court, January 17, 1985[4]

Claire Conroy, at 84 years old, was conscious but confused, and could only be fed intravenously. She was unable to swallow or communicate, and was expected to die within one year in her current condition. Her nephew sought to have her feeding tube removed. However, Conroy died while the court deliberated the case.

This court decision set narrow limits upon withholding care when the patient clearly would have refused treatment and when evidence exists to prove this point; when the cost of care outweighs the benefits; or when no evidence shows that the patient would have refused treatment, but the burdens of care outweigh the benefits, and the patient would suffer 'inhumane' pain.

The significance of this case is profound: The Court held that food and water is in the same category as artificial respirators and other medical treatment and may be withdrawn as "extraordinary measures."

The same Court vastly expanded the pool of patients who could be denied basic care just two years later in the Nancy Jobes case (described below).

Helen Corbett
Florida Court of Appeals, April 18, 1986[5]

Helen Corbett was a 75-year old terminally ill and incompetent patient being sustained on a feeding tube.

The Florida Court of Appeals decided that "a penumbral right to privacy" allowed the patient or a third party acting for her to refuse artificially administered food and water, even with a State law in place prohibiting such withdrawal.

Paul Brophy
Supreme Court of Massachusetts, September 11, 1986[6]

A blood vessel burst in 45-year old Paul Brophy's brain, damaging it extensively and plunging him into a permanent coma. His family wanted to have his life support disconnected, but the hospital refused to cooperate. The family filed suit.

The court found that Brophy, were he conscious, would want the feeding tube and life support systems disconnected. The court also found that Brophy could not be kept alive without his consent, and that the hospital and doctors could not be forced to cooperate in his killing. Brophy was moved out of the hospital, his life support was disconnected, and he died.

Paul Brophy was the first person in the United States to die as a direct result of court-ordered starvation.

Elizabeth Bouvia
California Court of Appeals, April 16, 1986[7]

The Case.

In this widely-publicized killing, Elizabeth Bouvia, a 28-year old quadriplegic with cerebral palsy, bedridden and in constant pain, expressed a desire to die. The hospital staff had earlier began to feed her intravenously against her wishes. She asked a court to order that the tube be removed. The court refused, and Bouvia appealed.

The resultant frightening decision took a long step towards legalizing and abetting suicide. This was the first court decision that upheld a right to assisted suicide.

The majority opinion argued that the medical profession and the State should be "... permitting and in fact assisting the patient to die with ease and dignity."

The ruling held that a patient need not be in a coma or near death to decline treatment. The 'right to privacy' may decide whether or not his or her 'quality of life' is sufficient to go on living. The court decided that motives play no important part in such a decision, and ordered that the feeding tube be removed.

The Conclusion.

Thus, the right to privacy, found nowhere in the United States Constitution, has led first to the total legalization of artificial contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), the legalization of abortion (Roe v. Wade), the legalization of infanticide (Baby Doe), and now the legalization of involuntary passive euthanasia (Bouvia).

The progression down the slippery slope could not possibly be clearer.

There are only two steps remaining: (1) the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia, and (2) the legalization of involuntary active euthanasia.

As Chapter 112 describes, both of these are stated objectives of the pro-euthanasia movement.

CASE #10
Hector Rodas
Colorado District Court, January 23, 1987[8]

34-year old Hector Rodas suffered a drug-induced stroke and became a quadriplegic. He was competent (mentally alert), but unable to swallow or talk. He was not terminally ill, and was being fed with a nasogastric feeding tube.

The Colorado District Court held that the patient has " ... the right to accept or withdraw feeding and hydration treatment." The public hospital caring for Rodas was ordered to withdraw his feeding, despite protests by hospital personnel that they felt they would be participating in a suicide. The Court further ordered the hospital to provide Rodas nursing care until he died of starvation after 15 days.

This is the first case where a Court was petitioned to allow a lethal injection. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had requested a lethal injection for the dying Rodas, but later withdrew its petition.

This case is also disturbing because the consciences and the beliefs of the health care workers were utterly disregarded.

CASE #11
Nancy Ellen Jobes
New Jersey Supreme Court, June 24, 1987[9]

Nancy Ellen Jobes was 32 years old and severely brain damaged. She could follow people with her eyes and respond to commands and various stimuli. She was being sustained with a feeding tube, but was not terminally ill.

The Court ordered Jobes' nursing home staff to stop her feeding, but her family moved her to another facility that starved her to death over a period of 19 days.

This case vastly expanded the pool of patients whose food and water could be withdrawn, even if the patient had never expressed a desire for such action. In other words, third parties who could "best understand the patient's personal values and beliefs" could substitute their judgment for the patient's.

The Court also ruled that, from this point onward, no Court hearing was necessary for health care facilities to gain permission to stop the feeding of a patient or patients.

This means that, in New Jersey at least, a family that is awaiting an inheritance or just cannot be bothered to participate in the upkeep of a relative any more may have the patient starved to death, even if the patient had expressed no such wish.

This is the definition of involuntary euthanasia.

This was the same Court that would have allowed the starvation of Claire Conroy just two years earlier (this case is described above).

CASE #12
Marcia Gray
Rhode Island District Court, October 1987[10]

49-year old Marcia Gray had been comatose since January of 1986. She and her family had expressed a wish that extraordinary measures not be implemented to extend her life. District Court Judge Francis Boyle ruled that the state-run General Hospital must remove her feeding tube or transfer her to an institution that would carry out this wish. The General Hospital subsequently contacted 274 nursing homes and hospitals in the New England area, but none were willing to accept the patient for the sole purpose of executing her.

At this point, Rhode Island governor Edward DiPrete intervened and ordered the hospital to disconnect her feeding tube. This order was not appealable. On October 17, 1988, District Court Judge Francis Boyle ruled that Marcia Gray could be starved and dehydrated to death. On November 16, she was transferred to South County Hospital. Dr. Robert L. Conrad of the hospital was so eager to kill Gray that he removed her feeding tube in the ambulance on the trip to South County!

Marcia Gray took 15 long, agonizing days to die, during which time she lost fifty pounds. She had to be heavily sedated to suppress her severe seizures.

This case and the subsequent actions by the State are foreboding harbingers of things to come. If hospitals adhere to some kind of respect for life, they will be overridden by the State. Additionally, if General Hospital had not been able to find another institution willing to murder Gray, the hospital's personnel would have been forced to kill her over their moral and religious objections or face long jail terms for contempt of court.

The Director of the Rhode Island State Department of Mental Health and Hospitals, Thomas D. Romeo, said in an October 28, 1988 Providence Journal interview that this series of State actions would reawaken the old image of state hospitals as the dumping ground for patients, a "boneyard" where they are sent to die.

John Breguet, general counsel for the Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals, voiced the fears of many when he said, "Once we establish as a societal philosophy that society has a right to terminate some life that society thinks is not worth living, it is not hat far to go to the profoundly retarded, those with severe mental problems, or those with serious physical handicaps."

Of profound significance was the fact that Judge Boyle relied heavily on the 1973 abortion decision Roe v. Wade to affirm the principle "that a person has the right ... to control fundamental decisions involving his or her own body." Thus, the direct link between abortion and euthanasia is, at last, directly and irrevocably drawn for all to see.

Any pro-life activist who encounters a person disclaiming any connection between abortion and euthanasia should describe this court case to them.

CASE #13
Ione Bayer
North Dakota County Court, December 11, 1987[11]

Ione Bayer was a 62-year old woman in a persistent coma induced by a heart attack.

The North Dakota Court ruled that even food placed in a person's mouth is "artificial and intrusive," and a family could order such feeding stopped without Court intervention, and without confirmation from the patient.

The Court ordered Bayer's doctor to stop feeding her, but the doctor refused. In fact, no other doctor would agree to starve her to death.

Ione Bayer's family therefore took her home and starved her to death. It took her a week to die.

CASE #14
Mary O'Connor
New York Court of Appeals, October 15, 1988[12]

77-year old Mary O'Connor was conscious and able to respond to questions most of the time. She was fed by an intravenous line. Doctors sought to have a nasogastric tube inserted in order to provide adequate nutrition, but Mrs. O'Connor's two daughters sued to block this action and to have the IV removed.

The New York Court of Appeals ruled that there was not enough "clear and convincing" evidence that Mrs. O'Connor wanted to die, in spite of her statements to the effect of "I don't want to be a burden" and "I don't want to lose my dignity before I pass away."

The Court held that a patient must have a "firm and settled commitment" to ending treatment before becoming incompetent, and ruled that vague statements like those mentioned above did not provide proof enough that a patient wanted to be unhooked from life support mechanisms.

CASE #15
Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of Health
Missouri Supreme Court, November 16, 1988[13]

On January 11, 1983, 25-year old Nancy Cruzan was driving alone on an icy road, lost control of her vehicle, and was seriously injured in the resulting accident. She never regained consciousness and became one of the approximately ten thousand Americans living in a persistent comatose state.

Her medical status was that of a "severely handicapped" person. She required no life support machinery other than a feeding tube implanted in her stomach in early 1983. She was not terminally ill.

However, she was now an inconvenience to many people; the health care system, the state, and in particular her parents, Joe and Joyce Cruzan. But she was the opportunity of a lifetime for pro-euthanasiasts.

In order to kill Cruzan, it was necessary to first dehumanize her, a task willingly and expertly taken up by Dr. Fred Plum, Chief of Neurology at the Cornell New York Hospital.

During testimony, he referred to her as a mere "collection of organs" and an "artifact of technological medicine."[14]

In an interview with Nat Hentoff, Dr. Ronald Granford observed that she was the "moral equivalent of a biopsy from Nat Hentoff's arm," and asserted that her "legal personhood" should be removed so she could be disposed of or experimented upon without the bother of having to go to court.[14]

Just as the unborn are being referred to as "pre-human," those in a coma are now commonly referred to by physicians as "post-human."

Nancy's parents petitioned a lower court to order the Missouri Rehabilitation Center at Mount Vernon to allow their daughter to die. This court granted the petition, but the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision, stating that a decision to withhold or refuse treatment must be an "informed" one, and, most importantly, that a state's interest in human life does not depend on the quality of that life.

On appeal, the case Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of Health became the first to directly address the question of euthanasia at the United States Supreme Court level.

In a stunning victory for life, the Supreme Court narrowly averted making this case the euthanasiast's Roe v. Wade by denying that the so-called "right to die" is unfettered and absolute. The justices ruled that the States may require "clear and convincing" evidence that a comatose person actually wished to die before they lost their ability to decide their fates for themselves.

The Court essentially held that the States do not have to buckle under to family member's demands when a patient's wishes cannot be concretely proven.

However, the ruling indicated that there is a Constitutional right to refuse tube feeding and other life-sustaining measures when patients make their wishes clearly known before they become incompetent.

So a determined Joe and Joyce Cruzan headed back to the Missouri courts, and rounded up a string of Nancy's co-workers who were willing to testify that she would never want to live "like a vegetable." Nobody bothered to explain how her co-workers could all remember such a statement so clearly after more than eight years.

Nancy did not enjoy any kind of representation in the State court; nobody testified for her, because all of those who wanted her to live were ruled nonparties by the judge. The outcome of the one-sided hearing was a foregone conclusion.

So Nancy was sentenced to death. Her feeding tube was removed on December 14, 1990 at the Missouri Rehabilitation Center in Mount Vernon, Missouri.

In a chilling portent of the future, the first rescue mission staged to save a born person from death occurred on Tuesday, December 18, 1990. 19 persons were arrested as they tried to reach Nancy's hospital room. They were charged with the same offenses they encountered at abortion mills; criminal trespass and unlawful assembly.

Scores of armed police officers patrolled the halls of the Missouri Rehabilitation Center (George Orwell would be proud!) until she finally died of starvation and thirst after 12 days, on the day after Christmas 1990.

Doron Webster of the New York chapter of the Society for the Right to Die stated ominously that "We feel that Nancy Cruzan has made legal history."[15]

CASE #16
Carrie Coons
New York State District Court, April 4, 1989[16]

Carrie Coons was an 86-year old woman in a "persistently vegetative state." She was not terminally ill. She was being sustained only by a gastronomy tube in April of 1989, when this case was heard.

The Court had originally approved the removal of Mrs. Coon's gastronomy tube, but delayed the actual order for two weeks so that a facility could be found that would starve her.

During this grace period, Mrs. Coon's roommate and several nurses "weaned" her off the gastronomy tube and began feeding her by mouth. She recovered completely.

After the order to withdraw treatment had been rescinded, the Court asked Dr. Michael Wolff, one of Mrs. Coon's physicians and a nationally recognized expert in geriatric medicine, how doctors could accurately foretell how long a person would remain in (or even if they would remain in) a "persistent vegetative state."

Dr. Wolff replied that "I don't think there is any mechanism to establish that with absolute certainty."

References: Court Decisions on Euthanasia.

[1] Dr. Jack Kevorkian, quoted in Sarah Sullivan. "Kevorkian: The Rube Goldberg of Death." Cornerstone, Volume 19, Issue 93, pages 14 and 15.

[2] Debra Braun. "Karen Ann Quinlan Dies of Pneumonia at 31." National Right to Life News, June 20, 1985, page 15.

[3] The following articles on the Baby Doe case may be found in the National Right to Life News. (1) Burke Balch. "Caplan's Criticisms of [Baby Doe] Regs Way Off Mark." April 11, 1985, page 3. (2) David H. Andrusko. "Breathing Room." April 11, 1985, page 2. Article on the "Baby Doe" regulations: The 1984 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. (3) Debra Braun. "Three Years After Infant Doe." April 11, 1985, page 6. (4) James Bopp, Jr. "Health and Human Services Appeals Verdict in Original "Baby Doe" Regs Case to Supreme Court." May 2, 1985, page 11.

[4] Leslie Bond. "Cases Test Boundaries of Conroy Decision." National Right to Life News, November 21, 1985, pages 5 and 9. The cases of Hilda Peter and Nancy Ellen Jobes and how they relate to the Conroy decision.

[5] Leslie Bond. "Florida Appeals Court Authorizes Withdrawal of Food and Water." National Right to Life News, May 15, 1986, pages 1 and 9.

[6] The following articles on the Paul Brophy case may be found in the National Right to Life News. (1) Front Line Updates. "Wife Wants to Starve Comatose Husband." May 30, 1985, page 4. (2) David B. Wilson. "Life Leaves Few Simple Questions." December 5, 1985, page 11. Paul Brophy and the uncertainty of euthanasia. (3) Leslie Bond. "Judge Refuses to Halt Feeding of Man in Comatose Condition." November 7, 1985, pages 1 and 11. (4) Leslie Bond. "Paul Brophy: Attorney to Approach Supreme Court." October 9, 1986, page 4. (5) David H. Andrusko. "Brophy Dies Eight Days After Nourishment Withdrawn." November 6, 1986, page 1 and 15. (6) "The Full Dissent of Justice Francis O'Connor of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the Case of Paul Brophy." November 6, 1986, page 8. (7) David H. Andrusko. "The Bottom of the Slope." November 6, 1986, pages 2 and 9. (8) Nat Hentoff. "Come Sweet Death." October 15, 1987, pages 6 and 9. Paul Brophy and the process of dehydration.

[7] The following articles on the Elizabeth Bouvia case may be found in the National Right to Life News. (1) David H. Andrusko. "Court Opens Gates to Assisted Suicide in Bouvia Decision." May 1, 1986, pages 1 and 17. (2) Paul K. Longmore. "Urging the Handicapped to Die." June 12, 1986, page 6.

[8] The following articles on the Hector Rodas case may be found in the National Right to Life News. (1) David H. Andrusko. "Man Starves Self to Death With Court Approval." February 19, 1987, pages 1 and 9. (2) David H. Andrusko. "ACLU Filed Lawsuit on Behalf of Colorado Quadriplegic Seeking Assisted Suicide." April 30, 1987, pages 8 and 14.

[9] The following articles on the Nancy Ellen Jobes case may be found in the National Right to Life News. (1) Leslie Bond. "Cases Test Boundaries of Conroy Decision." November 21, 1985, pages 5 and 9. Hilda Peter and Nancy Ellen Jobes. (2) "Family Returns to Court to Force Nursing Home to Starve Woman." April 10, 1986, page 8. (3) Leslie Bond. "New Jersey Court Authorizes Dehydration Death of Patient." May 1, 1986. Back cover. (4) Leslie Bond. "Jobes Decision to be Appealed by Nursing Home and by Public Advocate." May 29, 1986, pages 1 and 5. (5) Leslie Bond. "New Jersey High Court Asked to Extend 'Right to Die.' " November 20, 1986, pages 5 and 10. Nancy Ellen Jobes, Kathleen Farrell, and Hilda Peter. (6) David H. Andrusko. "Catholic Health Association, New Jersey Bishops Clash Over Providing Food and Water." March 19, 1987, pages 1 and 8. (7) David H. Andrusko. "New Jersey Catholic Conference Files Brief Opposing Withdrawal of Food and Water in Jobes Case." March 19, 1987, page 5. (8) Leslie Bond. "Nancy Jobes' Nursing Staff to Receive Florence Nightingale Life Award." May 28, 1987, page 14. (9) David H. Andrusko. "New Jersey High Court Hands Down Trio of Pro-Euthanasia Decisions." July 2, 1987, pages 1 and 7. Nancy Ellen Jobes and Hilda Peter. (10) Thomas J. Marzen. "Death and Due Process in New Jersey." July 30, 1987, pages 1 and 8.

[10] The following articles on the Marcia Gray case may be found in the National Right to Life News. (1) David H. Andrusko. "Rhode Island Bishop Statement Endorses Withholding of Food and Water." February 11, 1988, back cover. (2) Leslie Bond. "Rhode Island Case Marks First Establishment of Federal Constitutional 'Right' to Starve Incompetent Patients." November 17, 1988, pages 7 and 11. (3) Leslie Bond. "Marcia Gray Dies After Feeding Tube Withdrawn; Breguet Assails Notion of 'Life Not Worth Living.' " December 15, 1988, pages 3 and 10. (4) Nat Hentoff. "Marcia Gray: Legalizing Death By Starvation." February 1, 1989, pages 4 and 5.

[11] The following articles on the Ione Bayer case may be found in the National Right to Life News. (1) David H. Andrusko. "No Resolution in Sight Over Fight to Feed Ione Bayer." February 11, 1988, pages 7 and 9. (2) "Ione Bayer Dies." April 21, 1988, page 13.

[12] The following articles on the Mary O'Connor case may be found in the National Right to Life News. (1) Leslie Bond. "Conscious Patient May Be Starved to Death At Daughter's Request, NY Court Rules." September 12, 1988, page 9. (2) Leslie Bond. "Anti-Euthanasia Forces Victorious in New York: Mary O'Connor Will Receive Food and Water." November 17, 1988, page 15. (3) Nat Hentoff. "A Tragedy Averted." April 6, 1989, pages 1 and 7.

[13] "19 Protestors Halted." The Oregonian. Wednesday, December 19, page A17. Additionally, the following articles on the Nancy Cruzan case may be found in the National Right to Life News. (1) Leslie Bond. "State of Missouri Actively Fights Efforts to Starve Nancy Cruzan." December 17, 1987, pages 1 and 11. (2) David H. Andrusko. "Missouri Supreme Court to Hear Appeal of Death-By-Starvation Sentence for Nancy Cruzan." August 25, 1988, page 6. (3) Samuel Lee and David H. Andrusko. "Missouri Supreme Court Refuses to Authorize Starvation Death of Nancy Cruzan." December 5, 1988, pages 1 and 7. (4) "Excerpts From the Nancy Cruzan Decision." December 5, 1988, page 8. (5) Tom Marzen. "Nancy Cruzan Case Raises Critical Issues." August 10, 1989, pages 1 and 10. (6) Nat Hentoff. "Hippocrates and Nancy Cruzan." September 7, 1989, page 5. (7) David H. Andrusko. "Nancy Cruzan Should Not Be Starved, Justice Department Says." November 2, 1989, page 7. (8) Nat Hentoff. "The Ominous Implications of the Cruzan Case." March 28, 1990, page 11. (9) David H. Andrusko. "Supreme Court Offers Protection to Incompetent Patients in Landmark Cruzan Case." June 25, 1990, pages 1 and 12. (10) David H. Andrusko. "Missouri Attorney General Asks Circuit Court for Permission to Withdraw from New Cruzan Hearing." October 2, 1990, page 6. (11) David H. Andrusko. "Judge Allows Attorney General to Withdraw From Cruzan Case." October 31, 1990, pages 9 and 10. (12) David H. Andrusko. "Pro-Death Leader Outlines Legislative Strategy." October 31, 1990, page 11. Fallout from the Nancy Cruzan case.

[14] David Brockbauer. "Pagan Ethics: The Nancy Cruzan Case." Fidelity Magazine, February 1990, pages 11 to 14.

[15] Jerry Nachtigal. "Nancy Cruzan Dies Peacefully." The Oregonian, December 27, 1990, pages 1 and 12.

[16] The following articles on the Carrie Coons case may be found in the National Right to Life News. (1) Leslie Bond. "Starvation Order Hastily Rescinded As Carrie Coons Awakens From So-Called "Irreversible" PVS." April 27, 1989, pages 5 and 7. (2) Nat Hentoff. "Not 'Hopeless Case' After All." May 11, 1989, page 4.

Further Reading: Court Decisions on Euthanasia.

Father Robert Barry, O.P. Protecting the Medically Dependent: Social Challenge and Ethical Imperative
Order from American Life League, Post Office Box 2250, Stafford, Virginia 22554. How to construct, ethically and legislatively, a proper plan of protection for the seriously ill.

A.R. Saqueton, M.D. In Defense of Life
ARS Publishing Company, Post Office Box 6444, Stockton, California 95206. 232 pages, 1981. Reviewed by Felicia Goeken on page 9 of the May 10, 1982 issue of National Right to Life News and page 11 of the July 8, 1982 issue of the same publication. Also reviewed by Robert L. Sassone on page 20 of the May 1982 issue of ALL About Issues. One of the most valuable references available on "right to die" legislation. The 'Right to Die,' Living Wills, terminal conditions, and many other aspects of euthanasia are covered in this primer-type work.

Society for the Right to Die. Case Law Fact Sheets
Society for the Right to Die, 250 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10107, telephone: (212) 246-6973. Three volumes: Volume I covers 1976 to 1986, Volume II covers 1987 to 1989, and Volume III covers 1990 to the present. Analyses of all of the significant 'right-to-die' decisions since the Quinlan decision in 1976.

Society for the Right to Die. Refusal of Treatment Legislation: A State By State Compilation of Enacted and Model Statutes
Society for the Right to Die, 250 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10107, telephone: (212) 246-6973. This ring binder includes the full text of every living will and durable power of attorney statute in the United States, the model statute entitled the Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, and summaries and highlights of the significant features of all of these documents.

© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111

This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published by American Life League.