The Cruzan Case Analysis

The right to refuse medical treatment, is guarded under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution to identify the patient’s wishes. Such a litigation was used in the Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health which changed the society view on who has the right to die (Gladwell). The right to die in most cases is approached through the practices of passive euthanasia, which means pulling out the life support machines of a terminally ill person. Legally, a person is guarded by the constitution from performance of live saving surgery or medication as the constitution defines that each person is a master of their own body. Supporters argues that physicians are not guarded by the constitution in substituting their judgment for that of the patient’s.

It beats logic why anyone would consider an expensive, painful and delayed death to a terminally ill person as opposed to granting them the help of a right to a physician to help in relieving the pain, delay and expenses. The credibility of the above thoughts is drawn from the legal aspect where the court observed that “clear and convincing evidence” for the need to remove life-sustaining treatment was evident in Cruzan case. The Clear and convincing evidence is dependent on the patient’s decision as to why they don’t need a life-sustaining treatment. Human rights groups and other critics cannot be the source of “clear and convincing evidence”. The only source of “clear and convincing evidence” is the terminally ill patient who should have the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment if they make their wishes known

For example, a depressed person with suicidal thoughts, cannot simply claim the need for a physician assisted suicide. For such a case, the right die would be ethically and legally not available for the depressed person. Despite the constitution, in the fourteenth amendment granting the citizen the right to refusal to medication, depressed person have access to multiple channel of accessing working treatments. In this light, physician assisted suicide must not be confused as a legal means of performing a licensed suicide. Physician assisted suicide must be guarded and available for patients who are in a vegetative state and have no hope of recovery. More so, physician assisted suicide should only be available as an optional means of ending the life of a terminally ill patient where the burden of pain and suffering mentally, physically and economically becomes unbearable for the patient and the family. Under the above revelations, it’s paramount to draft policies and regulation that would ensure that the right criterion is met for determining a terminally ill person. For example, a requirement of state and private doctors approvals, each 15 days a part, that someone is terminally ill and there is no hope of keeping them