Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:50:15.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Tyranny of Judicial Formalism: Oral Directives and the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2002

BEN A. RICH
Affiliation:
Bioethics Program at the University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento.

Extract

A decision by the Supreme Court of California in the case Conservatorship of Wendland, issued in August 2001, forces us once again to confront the all-too-common situation in which an individual has, on multiple occasions, expressed strongly held personal convictions about life-sustaining interventions but failed to incorporate those convictions into a formal advance directive. Many courts have recognized that lay citizens do not consistently resort to written legal formalities in their day-to-day lives, and reasonable accommodation must be made to this fundamental fact about human nature. However, a small but apparently growing minority of courts adamantly insist on either formal written directives or prescience and prophetic precision on the part of the patient before a surrogate can direct the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The chronology of cases that comprise this minority position in American medical jurisprudence raise important ethical issues.

Type
THE CADUCEUS IN COURT
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)