Abstract
The Missouri case of Nancy Cruzan brings into sharp focus the medical ethics issue of the right to privacy. It also raises the need for definition of life ranging from cellular to personal. What is it about forced feeding that transforms it into an extraordinary means of nonfunctional treatment? There is the question of balancing benefit and cost (whether personal or financial). Currently we are confronted by the problem of balancing human rights violations against efforts to be “helpful” by the use of heroic medical measures, all of this against the background of ever-changing medical technology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cruzan v. Harmon, Estate No. CV384-9P, slip op. (Cir. Ct., Jasper Co., Mo.), July 27, 1988.
Cruzan v. Harmon, Mo.Sup.Ct., No. 70813, 11/16/88; 57LW2324, 12/6/88.
Cruzan v. Harmon, Estate No. CV384-9P, slip op.,op. cit., p. 4.
195 Cal-App. 3d 1075, (Oct. 29, 1987) Elizabeth Bouvia, Plaintiff v. County of Los Angeles,et al., p. 5.
Ibid.
Kane, F. I., “Keeping Elizabeth Bouvia Alive for the Public Good,”Hastings Center Report, 1985,15, 6.
Annas, G. J., “When Suicide Prevention Becomes Brutality: The Case of Elizabeth Bouvia,”Hastings Center Report, 1984,14, 2, 46.
Matthew 10:28.
Baby Jane Doe, 476 US610 (1986) p. 610 ff.
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. University Hospital of the State of New York at Stony Brook, Defendant, Parents of Baby Jane Doe, Intervenor Defendants. U.S. District Court, E. D., New York, Long Island District, Nov. 17, 1983.
476 US610 (1986), p. 610.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Belgum, D. The right to die at the end of your life. J Relig Health 29, 125–137 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986407
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986407