Cruzan: Facing the Inevitable

Abstract

When the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court that it was not in the best interests of Nancy Cruzan to die of dehydration and malnutrition by withholding from her food and fluids provided by tube the result was deplored by many legal and popular commentators.The criticism suggested a wide range of values and reasoning that were reflected in the various briefs filed in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of reversing the Missouri court decision. The objections might be placed in three categories: the medical, the legal, and the ethical.The medical rationale for reversal of the Missouri Supreme Court categorized provision of food and fluids by tube as a “medical treatment” and, hence, subject to practices that pertain to forgoing other, more obvious forms of medical treatment, such as use of respirators or chemotherapy.