Wendland v. Wendland
Encyclopedia
In 2001, in the case Wendland v. Wendland, also known as the Robert Wendland case, the Supreme Court of California
unanimously ruled that Rose Wendland, the wife of Robert Wendland, in absence of a durable power of attorney for health care (DPAHC), did not have the authority to refuse artificial nutrition and hydration
on her husbands' behalf. The Court recognized that patients unable to make a decision for themselves should receive special protection according to their constitutional right to life
and right to privacy.
, being unable to "swallow, control his bowels or bladder, communicate verbally or nonverbally, or act volitionally
," but he was able to react to simple commands with much repetitive coaching. Robert's wife and children also believed that he was unable to recognize them.
Two years later, after being informed by Robert's physicians that Robert had no reasonable chance of improvement, his wife, Rose, and children requested that Robert's physicians to remove the feeding tube and allow Robert to die. According to Rose and Robert's brother, who had both spoken to Robert before his accident about living on life support
or being kept alive through a feeding tube, Robert would not have wanted to live under those conditions.
This decision was challenged by Robert's estranged mother, Florence, who sued Rose in order to prevent the removal of feeding tubes from her son, and the lawsuit
lasted for six years until the decision made by the Supreme Court of California
in 2001.
supported the superior court's decision to require the conservator, Rose Wendland, to clearly prove that withholding the feeding tubes would have been in Robert Wendland's best interest. Since Robert Wendland had not given Rose DPAHC or left any written documentation stating his treatment desires, the Court ruled that Rose Wendland did not have the authority to refuse life-sustaining treatment on Robert Wendland's behalf in order to provide special protection to an mentally impaired
person's right to life
and right to privacy.
According to Nelson, if Robert had given Rose the power of attorney, the Court would have respected Rose's decision to remove Robert's feeding tubes.
Supreme Court of California
The Supreme Court of California is the highest state court in California. It is headquartered in San Francisco and regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.-Composition:...
unanimously ruled that Rose Wendland, the wife of Robert Wendland, in absence of a durable power of attorney for health care (DPAHC), did not have the authority to refuse artificial nutrition and hydration
Feeding tube
A feeding tube is a medical device used to provide nutrition to patients who cannot obtain nutrition by swallowing. The state of being fed by a feeding tube is called gavage, enteral feeding or tube feeding...
on her husbands' behalf. The Court recognized that patients unable to make a decision for themselves should receive special protection according to their constitutional right to life
Right to life
Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being...
and right to privacy.
Background
In 1993, Robert Wendland became permanently physically and mentally disabled after being severely injured in an automobile accident. After spending 16 months in a coma, Robert Wendland emerged with severe cognitive impairmentCognitive dysfunction
Cognitive dysfunction is defined as unusually poor mental function, associated with confusion, forgetfulness and difficulty concentrating...
, being unable to "swallow, control his bowels or bladder, communicate verbally or nonverbally, or act volitionally
Volition (psychology)
Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action. It is defined as purposive striving, and is one of the primary human psychological functions...
," but he was able to react to simple commands with much repetitive coaching. Robert's wife and children also believed that he was unable to recognize them.
Two years later, after being informed by Robert's physicians that Robert had no reasonable chance of improvement, his wife, Rose, and children requested that Robert's physicians to remove the feeding tube and allow Robert to die. According to Rose and Robert's brother, who had both spoken to Robert before his accident about living on life support
Life support
Life support, in medicine is a broad term that applies to any therapy used to sustain a patient's life while they are critically ill or injured. There are many therapies and techniques that may be used by clinicians to achieve the goal of sustaining life...
or being kept alive through a feeding tube, Robert would not have wanted to live under those conditions.
This decision was challenged by Robert's estranged mother, Florence, who sued Rose in order to prevent the removal of feeding tubes from her son, and the lawsuit
Lawsuit
A lawsuit or "suit in law" is a civil action brought in a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have incurred loss as a result of a defendant's actions, demands a legal or equitable remedy. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint...
lasted for six years until the decision made by the Supreme Court of California
Supreme Court of California
The Supreme Court of California is the highest state court in California. It is headquartered in San Francisco and regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.-Composition:...
in 2001.
The court's decision
The Supreme Court of CaliforniaSupreme Court of California
The Supreme Court of California is the highest state court in California. It is headquartered in San Francisco and regularly holds sessions in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Its decisions are binding on all other California state courts.-Composition:...
supported the superior court's decision to require the conservator, Rose Wendland, to clearly prove that withholding the feeding tubes would have been in Robert Wendland's best interest. Since Robert Wendland had not given Rose DPAHC or left any written documentation stating his treatment desires, the Court ruled that Rose Wendland did not have the authority to refuse life-sustaining treatment on Robert Wendland's behalf in order to provide special protection to an mentally impaired
Cognitive dysfunction
Cognitive dysfunction is defined as unusually poor mental function, associated with confusion, forgetfulness and difficulty concentrating...
person's right to life
Right to life
Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being...
and right to privacy.
According to Nelson, if Robert had given Rose the power of attorney, the Court would have respected Rose's decision to remove Robert's feeding tubes.
See also
- Cases from Supreme Court of California
- Euthanasia in the United StatesEuthanasia in the United StatesEuthanasia is illegal in all states of the United States. Physician aid-in-dying , or assisted suicide, is legal in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Montana. The key difference between euthanasia and PAD is who administers the lethal dose of medication...
- Terri Schiavo caseTerri Schiavo caseThe Terri Schiavo case was a legal battle in the United States between the legal guardians and the parents of Teresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo that lasted from 1998 to 2005...