See Cruzan v. Mouton, Estate No. CV384–9P (Circuit Ct., Jasper County, Mo., Probate Div.) (Dec. 14, 1990); GrantEdward R.CleaverCathleen A., “A Line Less Reasonable”: Cruzan and the Looming Debate Over Active Euthanasia, 2Md. J. Contemp. Leg. Issues99, 147–152.
HoranDennis J., The Quinlan Case, in Death, Dying & Euthanasia, 525 (University Publications of America, 1980); RamseyPaul, Ethics at the Edges of Life, New Haven (Yale University Press, 1980).
5.
Ramsey, supra note 4 at 294.
6.
70 N.J. at 41, 355 A.2d at 664.
7.
112 S.Ct. 1791 (1992).
8.
112 S.Ct. at 2806.
9.
In re Treatment and Care of Infant Doe, No. GU 8204–004A (Monroe County, Ind., April 12, 1984), reprinted at 52 Linacre Q. 72 (1985); State ex rel. Infant Doe v. Baker, No. 482 S 140 (Ind. Sup. Ct., May 27, 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 961 (1983).
KathleenKen, “Baby Doe's Success: Progress Defying Prognosis,”Newsday, Dec. 7, 1987 at 1; See generally U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Medical Discrimination against Children with Disabilities, 1989, 39–46.
13.
Rasmussen v. Fleming, 154 Ariz. 207, 741 P.2d 674 (1987); Barber v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App.3d 1006, 195 Cal. Rptr. 484, 491 (1983); Bouvia v. Superior Court, 179 Cal. App.3d 1127, 225 Cal. Rptr. 297 (1986); In re Gardner, 534 A.2d 947 (Maine, 1987); Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital, 398 Mass. 417, 497 N.E.2d 626 (1986); In re Jobes, 108 N.J. 394, 519 A.2d 434 (1987).
14.
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 110 S.Ct. 2841, 2852 (1990).