Hydration,Nutrition,and Euthanasia: Legal Reflections on the Role of Church Teaching

In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647, cert denied sub nom. Garger v. N.J., 429 U.S. 922 (1976). The New Jersey Supreme Court appointed the adoptive father of Miss Quinlan as her guardian, with authority to give his consent to a decision to remove his daughter from a mechanical ventilator. The ventilator was withdrawn, and Miss Quinlan subsequently lived for nine years.

Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728, 370 N.E. 2d 417 (1977). The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that, under the same constitutional privacy right to refuse medical treatment that was established in Quinlan, chemotherapy could be withheld from a severely retarded, lifelong resident of a state hospital.

Horan Dennis , and Grant Edward “Prolonging Life and Withdrawing Treatment: Legal Issues,” 50 Linacre Quarterly, 153, 166-68 (1983); reprinted in AUL Studies in Law and Medicine, No. 15, available from AUL Legal Defense Fund, 343 S. Dearborn St., #1804, Chicago, Ill. 60604.

For a fuller discussion of this case, see Horan Dennis , and Grant Edward “The Legal Aspects of Withdrawing Nourishment,” 5 J. of Legal Med. 595 (1983) (reprinted in AUL Studies, No. 19, note 3, supra).

Barber v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App. 3d 186, 209 Cal. Rptr. 220 (1984).

See Horan , and Grant supra. note 4 at 607-612.

President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment (1983).

In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 486 A.2d 1209 (1985).

Sullivan “Jersey Curbs on Ending Life Supports are Ignored,” New York Times, Nov. 27, 1986.

In re Jobes, No. C-4971-85E (N.J. Super. Ct., Chancery Division, Morris County, Apr. 23, 1986), slip op. at 1.

487 So. 2d 368 (Fla. App. 2d Dist. 1986), petition for review denied, No.68,817(Fla. Sup. Ct., July 30, 1986).

See Everett Koop C. , and Grant Edward “The Small Beginnings of Euthanasia: Examining the Erosion in Legal Prohibitions Against Mercy-Killing, 2 Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 585, 632, n. 152 (1986)

179 Cal. App. 3d 1127, 225 Cal. Rptr. 297 (1986).

225 Cal. Rptr. at 305.

225 Cal. Rptr. at 307 (Compton, J., concurring).

Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital, 398 Mass. 417, 497 N.E.2d 626 (1986).

“The withdrawal of the provision of food and water is a particularly difficult, painful and gruesome death; the cause of death would not be some underlying physical disability like kidney failure or the withdrawal of some highly invasive medical treatment, but the unnatural cessation of feeding and hydration which, like breathing, is part of the responsibilities we assume toward our bodies routinely. Such a process would not be very far from euthanasia, and the natural question is: Why not use more humane methods of euthanasia if that is what we indorse? The State has an interest in maintaining the public integrity of the symbols of life — apparent euthanasia, and an apparently painful and difficult method of euthanasia, is contrary to that interest.” 497 N.E.2d at 641 (Lynch, J., dissenting).

Destro Robert “Quality of Life Ethics and Constitutional Jurisprudence: The Demise of Natural Rights of and Equal Protection for the Disabled and Incompetent,” 2 Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy 71, 92 (1986).

497 N.E. 2d at 636.

Bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities, “Guidelines for Legislation on Life-Sustaining Treatment” (1984); “Statement on the Uniform Rights of the Terminally III Act”, (1986). Copies of the testimony of Father Paris in Barber and Brophy, of Father Kukura in Conroy, and of Father Connery in Brophy, are on file with Americans United for Life, note 3, supra.

Brief of New Jersey Catholic Conference as Amicus Curiae, reprinted in In the Matter of Karen Quinlan. Vol. II, p. 197 (1976).

Brief and appendix for Amicus Curiae New Jersey Catholic Conference, In re Claire C. Conroy. (Copy on file with authors).

In re Conroy, 190 N.J. Super, 453, 464 A.2d 303 (1983).

Brief and appendix, supra note 22 at 3.

Brief and appendix of the Amicus Curiae New Jersey Catholic Conference, In re Nancy Ellen Jobes, Docket No. 26,041 (N.J. Supreme Ct., 1986) at 4-5. Reprinted in Origins (National Catholic News Service), Jan. 22, 1987. Interestingly, a sentence appears in the Jobes brief which is very similar to the enigmatic portion of the Conroy brief quoted in the text of this article. See Jobes brief at 3. This portion of the Jobes brief appears to have been lifted, with minor revisions, from the Conference brief in Conroy. However, the context in which the passage is placed is quite different. The preceding paragraph of the Jobes brief states that “withdrawal of nutrition and hydration introduces a new attack upon human life.” The Conroy brief makes no such statement.

Compare James McCartney “Catholic Positions on Withholding Sustenance for the Terminally III,” Health Progress, Oct. 1986, at 38, with Leslie Rothenberg, “The Dissenting Opinions: Biting the Hands That Won't Feed,” Health Progress, Dec. 1986, at 38.

In re Requena, 213 N.J. Super. 475 (Ch. Div., 1986), aff d. 213 N.J. Super. 443 (App. Div. 1986). The trial judge. Reginald Stanton, in suggesting that the hospital reconsider its ethical objection to the desire of Mrs. Requena not to receive nourishment, atempted to distinguish feeding-tube cases from the question of abortion, and gave a rare glimpse of a judge's rejection of current policy on abortion. “I suspect that part of the Hospital's insistence on what it perceives as a pro-life position in this case is a mistaken fall-out from the abortion controversy which is ongoing in our society. The Hospital, whose values are premised as they are on the loving care of people, naturally (and I think properly) views abortion as a terrible evil. But abortion involves the active, direct, intentional termination of life by interfering in the processes of nature. The life taken is usually perfectly healthy. The fetus does not in any sense consent to what is done to it. None of those elements are present in Mrs. Requena's case. There is no sensible comparison to be drawn between the two situations.” 213 N.J. Super, at 486.

See Destro supra note 18 at 115-122; Gilbert Meilaender, “The Confused, the Voiceless, the Perverse: Shall We Give Them Food and Drink?” 2 Issues in Law and Medicine, 133, 134–136.

Horan Dennis , and Grant Edward “Catholic Ethical Teaching and Public Policy: How Do They Relate?, Linacre Quarterly, Nov., 1986, p. 28.

Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, Statement on Withholding or Withdrawing Life Prolonging Medical Treatment, March 15, 1986. Reported in American Medical News, March 28, 1986, p. 1.

O'Rourke Kevin “The A.M.A. Statement on Tube Feeding: An Ethical Analysis,” America, Nov. 22, 1986, p. 321, 322.

McCartney supra note 26.

McCormick Richard “Caring or Starving? The Case of Claire Conroy,” America, April 6, 1986, p. 269, 272.

Rothenberg supra note 26 at 42-44.

Id. at 44, quoting O'Donnell, The Medical-Moral Newsletter, Nov. 1986, at p. 36.

“The Liberation of Lolly and Gronky”, Life, Dec. 1986.

Hemlock Quarterly, April 1986, p. 1.

Dyck Arthur “Beneficent Euthanasia and Benemortasia: Alternative Views of Mercy”, in Death, Dying, and Euthanasia, pp. 348–361(1980).

Horan Dennis “Euthanasia and Brain Death: Ethical and Legal Considerations, 315 Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 363, 372 (1978).

AMA Statement, note 30, supra. See also, Koop and Grant, supra note 12 at 594, n. 24.

Brophy v. New England Sinai Hosp., No. 85E0009-G1 (Mass. Probate Ct., Norfolk, Oct. 21, 1985) slip op. at 42-43.