Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T15:31:27.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Case of Brother Fox: Immunity Procedures in the Treatment of Terminally Ill Incompetent Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

C. Dickerman Williams
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the “Brother Fox case,” the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for the Second Department, in a thoughtful and exhaustive opinion, announced several rulings of significance affecting the treatment of the terminally ill. The decision dealt with both competent and incompetent patients, but is especially relevant to more complex problems associated with the incompetent patient.

The court held that a competent terminally ill patient was entitled to refuse medical treatment and, that a competent person might lawfully direct that treatment be withheld should he later become terminally ill and incompetent. The court then declared that these rights were of constitutional dimension, embodied in the constitutional right of privacy, and not based on a mere common law “bodily right of self determination.”

Type
Article
Information
Medicolegal News , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , August 1980 , pp. 11 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1980

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.)

References

Eichner v. Dillon, 426 N.Y.S. 2d 517 (Sup. Ct., App. Div., 2d Dept., 1980). The second department embraces Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and the suburbs of New York City. The trial court in this case was the Special Term, Supreme Court, Nassau County. The decisions of the Appellate Division are subject to review by the Court of Appeals, New York's court of last resort. The district attorney of Nassau County has applied for review in this court.Google Scholar
Concern for Dying, in its May 1980 newsletter, announced that it has distributed over four million copies of its version of the “living will” document.Google Scholar
In the Matter of Karen Ann Quinlan, 355 A.2d 647 (N.J. 1976).Google Scholar
The text of this “allocutio” was submitted to the Supreme Court of New Jersey in an amicus curiae brief filed by the New Jersey Catholic Conference.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152–53 (1973).Google Scholar
Eichner, supra note 1, at 542–43.Google Scholar
Id., at 544.Google Scholar
Id., at 550.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id., at 551.Google Scholar
Quinlan, supra note 3, at 669.Google Scholar
Id., at 671.Google Scholar
Eichner, supra note 1, at 549–50.Google Scholar
Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 370 N.E.2d 417 (Mass. 1977).Google Scholar
In the Matter of Earle N. Spring, 405 N.E. 2d 115 (Mass. 1980).Google Scholar
Matter of Dinnerstein, 380 N.E.2d 134 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978).Google Scholar
Spring, supra note 18, at 121.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Sharp and Crofts, Death with Dignity – The Physician's Civil Liability, 27 Baylor Law Review 86–108(1975).Google Scholar