Rose Wendland:

"I hope that nothing ever happens to any of the justices’ families because you know that old saying.  ‘What goes around comes around.’” 

"Those justices truly do not get it."

"They needed to go see Robert."

Note:  The Decision reveals that the justices watched
 6 videotapes of Robert's therapy sessions.

Florence Wendland: 

"Robert's not here, but if he were, he'd be as pleased as we are."

 "I knew all along that the ruling would be in Robert's favor."

"The door is always open."

Commenting on whether or not her fractured family
can ever heal in the aftermath of this momentous battle.

Katie Wendland:
(Robert's daughter)

“To even ask questions about his ability to think or make decisions is ridiculous and I don’t think the justices understood that.” 

Debra Hofer:
(Robert's sister)

"Because of this ruling, Robert did not die in vain."

Lawrence J. Nelson:
(Rose's attorney)

"It's the end of the line for this battle." Commenting on whether or not an appeal to the
U.S. Supreme Court on Rose's behalf is being contemplated.

"Your wishes, your values, the things you cared most about in life, maybe once those are lost, maybe life has no value. I think this opinion shows a profound disrespect for that." Emphasis added.

James Braden
(Attorney appointed by the court to represent Robert)

"What do I really think?  I think that we lost this case today."

May 30, 2001 ~~ immediately following oral argument before the Supreme Court

"I think it's fortuitous that he's passed on."

"What they are concluding is that it's [the court's] job to err on the side of keeping a guy alive. They are just legislating."

 Janie Hickok Siess:
(Florence's attorney)

"Judge McNatt said, in December 1997 when he ruled that Rose could not order the removal of Robert's feeding tube, that he was making 'the wrong decision for all the right reasons.'  In actuality, Judge McNatt made the right decision for all the right reasons -- and the California Supreme Court has affirmed that fact.

The Third District Court of Appeal began its February 2000 decision with "[t]his is the hardest case."  This wasn't a hard case at all.  To me, this case always presented an issue easily resolved.  What Rose Wendland contemplated -- the removal of Robert's feeding tube -- was barbaric and horrific.  So I have never been able to understand people who characterized the decision the jurists were called upon to make as "agonizing" or "difficult."  The correct answer was, to me, always clear, unequivocal, and not even worthy of debate.

The decision rendered by the Supreme Court is indeed Robert's legacy --- and it is a legacy of life.  That's truly something to be thankful for and proud of."

Dana Cody
(Executive Director, Life Legal Defense Foundation)

"We were elated by the decision because it will save the lives of many similarly situated individuals."

Diane Coleman, J.D.
(Not Dead Yet)

"Disability rights advocates applaud the California Supreme Court for taking a stand against the growing euthanasia movement. The Court saw through the thin veneer of compassion and the false rhetoric of choice, and stated the simple truth----that it was Rose's choice, not Robert's, and the reason was Rose's contempt for Robert's disability. The individual's right to reject unwanted treatment must never be twisted into a physician's, guardian's or insurer's right to kill."