Claire Conroy was an 84-year-old patient in a nursing home. She suffered from severe organic brain syndrome, necrotic decubitus ulcers, urinary tract infection, arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. She was unable to speak or move, but sometimes able to follow people with her eyes. Nurses were not able to feed her by hand, so a nasogastric tube was inserted to be able to provide nutrition and give all her medications and fluid this route. Her only surviving relative, her nephew and legal guardian, requested the Superior Court of Essex County, New Jersey, to allow the nasogastric tube to be removed and thus allow Claire Conroy to die. The Superior Court granted the request, but the Appellate Division of New Jersey decided to review the decision of the Appellate Court even though Claire Conroy had died because of the relevance for other people in nursing homes and hospitals who are in somewhat the same condition ("Claire Conroy Case: Withholding Tube Feeding," 2012). …show more content…
Another doctor testified that "although she was confused and unaware, she responds somehow”. Both experts were not sure if the patient could feel pain, although she had moaned when subjected to painful stimuli. They agreed, though, that if the nasogastric tube were removed, Conroy would die a painful death. Conroy's nephew testified that his aunt would never have wanted to be maintained in this manner. She feared doctors and had avoided them all her life. Because she was Roman Catholic, a priest was brought in to testify. In his judgment, the removal of the tube would be ethical and moral even though her death might be painful ("Claire Conroy Case: Withholding Tube Feeding,"