|
| |||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |||||||||||||||||
|
B E E E D I T O R I A L S Robert's wishes: Court struggles with right-to-die(Published June 2, 2001) It isn't hard to understand why California's Supreme Court justices are treading carefully toward the wrenching and portentous decision they must make in the case of Robert Wendland. Eight years ago, a car crash left the Stockton man, now 49, in a "minimally conscious state" with severe brain damage and no hope of recovery. He cannot walk, talk, eat or go to the bathroom. His wife, Rose, and brother say he once told them he never wanted to be kept alive on life support as a "vegetable"; Rose and his three children want his feeding tube removed so he can die. But Wendland's mother and sister have fought them in court for six years, saying that because he can respond at times to simple commands he is not "vegetative." Within 90 days, the high court must decide how to honor the wishes of a man who can no longer communicate those wishes. But if Wendland had left a "living will" or "advanced directive" clearly stating his written wishes about life support, the court might not be in this uncomfortable position, and his family might not have been as tortured by the aftermath of his accident. Fewer than one in five Americans have left such explicit instructions about health care preferences at the end of life, leaving emotionally fraught and ethically delicate decisions to their families and doctors, and sometimes to the courts. Given our general cultural squeamishness about death, the rarity of living wills doesn't come as much of a surprise. Yet they are remarkably easy and cost-free to draft, requiring neither an attorney nor a notary to make them enforceable. All that's needed is a handwritten note outlining the author's wishes about the circumstances under which he would prefer not to be resuscitated, or when he would like to be removed from life support. The will should be signed and dated by the author and two witnesses, at least one of whom is not an heir. Alternately, patients undergoing surgery or other hospital procedures can simply state their wishes to their doctor, who will note them in the medical chart, making them just as enforceable as a written will. Medical ethicists caution, however, that even while living wills may avert confusion and heartache for many in the aftermath of an unforeseen illness or accident, they aren't fail-safe, for they can't possibly foresee every circumstance. Wendland, for instance, talked about not wanting to be vegetative, but didn't specify whether minimal consciousness was acceptable. In those instances, California law allows conservators -- in this case, Rose Wendland -- to act in accordance with what they believe to be the patient's wishes and to withdraw feeding tubes from patients who cannot express themselves. The court will now struggle to find the standard of evidence it should apply before allowing the feeding tube to be removed. But had Wendland's wishes been spelled out more explicitly in advance, the justices and, more important, his family, might not find themselves in so unenviable a position. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Problems? Suggestions? Let us hear from you. Copyright © The Sacramento Bee | |||||||||||||||||