Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T23:35:49.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Long Dying of Nancy Cruzan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

George J. Annas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With the Nancy Cruzan decision, the post-Reagan Supreme Court continued recreating America's legal landscape by transferring traditional rights from its citizens to state legislatures and state officials. Attorneys Bopp and Marzen see Cruzan as a cause for celebration. The more common view is that it is a hollow acceptance of the technological imperative that requires all Americans to engage in extensive damage control. Given the composition of the Court, constituted by President Ronald Reagan to overrule Roe v. Wade, Bopp and Marzen correctly note that the result in Cruzan was “practically inevitable.” But its inevitability does not make its consequences any more desirable than the devastation caused by an inevitable tornado or tidal wave. This article summarizes the Cruzan case and suggests ways to contain its potentially destructive force.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 19 , Issue 1-2 , Spring Summer 1991 , pp. 52 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1991

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

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 110 S.Ct. 2841 (1990).Google Scholar
Bopp, Marzen, , “Cruzan: Facing the Inevitable” Law, Medicine & Health Care 19:1–2, Spring’/Summer, 1991, pp. 37–51.Google Scholar
Estate of Nancy Beth Cruzan v. Harmon, Estate No. CV384–98, Cir. Ct., Jasper Co., Mo. July 27, 1988. Portions of this section are adapted from Annas, “The Insane Root Takes Reason Prisoner,” Hastings Center Report, Jan/Feb 1989, 29–31.Google Scholar
Cruzan v. Harmon, 760 S.W. 2d 408 (Mo. 1988) (en banc).Google Scholar
In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647, cert. den. sub. nom. Garger v. New Jersey, 429 U.S. 922. (1976).Google Scholar
In re Jobes, 108 N.J. 394, 529 A.2d 434 (1987); In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 486 A.2d. 1209 (1985).Google Scholar
In re Storar, 52 N.Y. 2d 363, 420 N.E. 2d 64, cert. den. 454 U.S. 858 (1981).Google Scholar
Supra note 1. Portions of this section are adapted from Annas, “Nancy Cruzan and the Right to Die,” 323 New Engl J Med 670–673 (1990).Google Scholar
Storar, , supra note 7.Google Scholar
In re Westchester Co. Medical Center on behalf of O'Connor, 581 N.E. 2d 607 (NY 1988).Google Scholar
For a more complete discussion of the fluids and nutrition issue see Cantor, , “The Permanently Unconscious Patient, Non-Feeding and Euthanasia,” 15 Am. J. Law & Med. 381–438 (1989).Google Scholar
Marzen, , “‘Insane Roots and Serpent's Teeth’: Death and the Law in 1988,” in The Triumph of Hope: A Pro-Life Review of 1988 and a Look to the Future (Andrusko, D, Ed.), National Right to Life Committee, Washington, D.C., 1989, pp. 159–170.Google Scholar
A photo of Ms. Busalacchi from the videotape ran in the New York Times. “State Makes Public Videotape in Right-to-Die Case,” N.Y. Times, Feb. 5, 1991 at B6. See, e.g., Berthiaume v. Pratt, 365 A.2d 762 (Me. 1976).Google Scholar
Supra note 13 at 166. (emphasis in original)Google Scholar
The history of the Baby Doe rules is chronicled in Elias, S. Annas, G.J., Reproductive Genetics and the Law, Yearbook Med. Pub., Chicago, Ill, 1987 at 168–194.Google Scholar
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989), and see Annas, Glantz, & Mariner, , “The Right of Privacy Protects the Doctor-Patient Relationship,” 263 JAMA 858 (1990).Google Scholar
Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 110 S.Ct. 2972 (1990).Google Scholar
E.g., In one survey prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, 88 percent of the public thought the family should decide on treatment, 8 percent thought the doctors should decide, one percent the courts, and no one selected the state. Coyle, , “How Americans View the High Court,” National L. J., Feb. 26, 1990, 1, 36.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Annas, , “Precatory Prediction and Mindless Mimicry,” 18 Hastings Center Report, Dec. 1988 at 31–33.Google Scholar
Sabatino, C. P., Health Care Powers of Attorney. American Bar Association, Chicago, Ill., 1990.Google Scholar
Mass. G. L. 201D [and NY cite].Google Scholar
In re Guardianship of Browning, ____ So.2d ____ (Fla. 1990).Google Scholar
Rosenthal, , “Filling the Gap Where a Living Will Won't Do,” N.Y. Times, Jan. 17, 1991 at B9.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Vol. 1, Vintage Books, Random House, 1990 at 135–159 (“Right of Death and Power Over Life”).Google Scholar
Id. at 144.Google Scholar
Id. at 145. The “traditional” right of sovereign power was to decide life and death, usually by requiring subjects to wage war, or executing them for disobedience to law.Google Scholar
An insistence on individual rights need not be inconsistent with a simultaneous commitment to work for the common good. See, e.g., Havel, V., Living in Truth (Vladislav, J. ed. 1989) and discussion in Annas, , “Mapping the Human Genome and the Meaning of Monster Mythology,” 39 Emory L. J. 629, 658–664 (1990); and West, supra note 8.Google Scholar