Bouvia v. Superior Court - 179 Cal. App. 3d 1127, 225 Cal. Rptr. 297 (1986)

Rule:

If the right of the patient to make a self-determination as to his own medical treatment is to have any meaning at all, it must be paramount to the interests of the patient's hospital and doctors. The right of a competent adult patient to refuse medical treatment is a constitutionally guaranteed right which must not be abridged.

Facts:

Elizabeth Bouvia, a 28-year-old quadriplegic woman, afflicted with cerebral palsy since birth, who was confined to a bed in a public hospital in total helplessness and receiving periodic morphine injections for chronic, severe arthritic pain, petitioned for a writ of mandate to compel hospital officials to remove a nasogastric tube that had been inserted into her stomach through her nose for forced feeding of soft food after she had previously expressed an intention to starve herself in order to end a painful life that she considered to be futile and meaningless. The trial court had denied her a preliminary injunction ordering the tube's removal. Bouvia appealed that decision.

Issue:

Did Bouvia have a right to refuse life-saving treatment?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court found that in addition to all the other supporting cases and legislative pronouncements, that both the state and federal constitutions vested a fundamental right in patients to refuse such treatment. The real parties in interest contended that the interest of the state should prevail over that of petitioner's rights. The court rejected that argument because Bouvia’s quality of life should have been considered in addition to the consequences of prolonging of that life. The trial court erred when it based its decision on Bouvia’s motives for refusal because that examination was not required.