No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Tyranny of Judicial Formalism: Oral Directives and the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 May 2002
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
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2002 Cambridge University Press