MICHAEL A. NEVINS, M.D.
The question, when physicians are contemplating limitation of medical treatment for incurably ill patients, should be, what would the patient want? So said the New Jersey Supreme Court on 24 June 1987 in three decisions that broadened and consolidated its earlier landmark rulings in the cases of Karen Ann Quinlan (1976) and Claire Conroy (1985) (1). Then, as well as in the recent cases of Nancy Ellen Jobes, Hilda Peter, and Kathleen Farrell, the court did not advise whether life-supporting technology should be withdrawn, but rather, defined who may make such decisions and how they may be made. (Mrs. Jobes
NEVINS MA. New Jersey's Right-to-Die Cases: Round Three. Ann Intern Med. ;107:927–929. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-107-6-927
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 1987;107(6):927-929.
Results provided by:
Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use