On January 11, 1983, Nancy Cruzan was a 25 year old was driving at night when she lost control of her vehicle. When she lost control, she was launched outside of her vehicle into a ditch filled with water on the side of the road. When an ambulance arrived, she had no vital signs but they managed to revive her. The incident left her in a in a coma and they diagnosed her as being in a “persistent vegetative state.” For her to stay alive, they had to keep her attached to a feeding tube.
Cruzan’s parents wanted to end her life support because she had no signs of recovery and did not want her to live off of a feeding tube for the rest of her life. When Cruzan’s parents tried to terminate the life support, the state hospital officials refused to end it without a court approval. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state’s policy over Cruzan’s right to deny treatment.
On June 25, 1990, in a 5-4 decision, the Court decided the ruling of the Missouri Supreme Court and ruled in favor of the State of Missouri. The ruled with the State of Missouri because the parents did not have “clear and convincing evidence” of Nancy’s wishes to terminate her life support. Individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment under the due process clause, but the Cruzan family did not have…show more content… Events explains how the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that upheld the Death with Dignity Act on October 14, 1997. This law permits doctors to to prescribe lethal doses of medicine to terminally ill patients. There are multiple cases having to deal with “assisted suicide’ and the “right to die.” Some cases include Washington v. Glucksburg and Vacco v. Quill. The two cases are related in the fact that they both argue over how that the 14th amendment's due process guarantee terminally ill individuals a right to commit suicide with a doctor's
