Robert was involved in a car
accident while driving drunk. The accident left him brain damaged,
immobile, and dependent on artificial means of life support, but was
minimally conscious.
Two years later, his wife Rose
told the doctors to turn off the artificial life support and allow Robert
to die. Robert's mother and sister sued to stop this from happening.
As his wife, Rose was
Robert's conservator, meaning that
she had authority to make medical decisions for him.
The hospital ethics
committee unanimously approved of Rose's decision.
The Trial Court issued a
restraining order to keep the machines on, Rose appealed.
The Trial Court found that
Rose had not met her burden of showing by clear and convincing
evidence that Robert would want to
die.
The Appellate Court reversed.
Robert's mother and sister appealed
The Appellate Court found
that the conservator's good-faith
decision was enough, and that the Court didn't need to determine what
Robert would have wanted, he had deferred to Rose's judgment by making
her his conservator.
The California Supreme Court
reversed the Appellate Court and sustained the injunction to keep Robert
alive.
The California Supreme Court
found that a conservator may not
withhold artificial life support absent clear and convincing
evidence the conservator's decision is in accordance with either the conservatee's own wishes or best interest.
The Court noted that this
evidentiary standard does not apply to all decisions made by a conservator, it should be limited to the decision to
withdraw life-sustaining treatment from non-vegetative state conservatees who have not left legally cognizable health
care directives.
Basically there is a two-part
test. If there is no valid health care directive, there must be clear
and convincing evidence of both wishes and best interest.
This test only applies to
people who are not in a persistent
vegetative state.
