Bioethicists’ Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court's Cruzan Decision

George J. Annas; Bob Arnold; Mila Aroskar; Peggy Battin; Dianne Bartels; Tom Beauchamp; Daniel Brock; Allen Buchanan; Arthur Caplan; Cynthia Cohen; Ronald Cranford; Rebecca Dresser; Nancy Dubler; Ruth Faden; Norman Fost; Joel Frader; Leslie Francis; Michael Grodin; Chris Hackler; Bruce Jennings; Marc Lappe; Ruth Macklin; David Mayo; Alan Meisel; Steven Miles; Haavi Morreim; Lawrence J. Nelson; Lisa Parker; Robert Pearlman; Donnie Self; Robyn Shapiro; James Walters; Stephen Wear; Robert Weir; Daniel Wikler; Stuart Youngner

doi:10.1056/NEJM199009063231020

Bioethicists’ Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court's Cruzan Decision

George J. Annas, Bob Arnold, Mila Aroskar, Peggy Battin, Dianne Bartels, Tom Beauchamp, Daniel Brock, Allen Buchanan, Arthur Caplan, Cynthia Cohen, Ronald Cranford, Rebecca Dresser, Nancy Dubler, Ruth Faden, Norman Fost, Joel Frader, Leslie Francis, Michael Grodin, Chris Hackler, Bruce JenningsMarc Lappe, Ruth Macklin, David Mayo, Alan Meisel, Steven Miles, Haavi Morreim, Lawrence J. Nelson, Lisa Parker, Robert Pearlman, Donnie Self, Robyn Shapiro, James Walters, Stephen Wear, Robert Weir, Daniel Wikler, Stuart Youngner

Academic Centers

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

33 Scopus citations

Abstract

On June 25, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the case of Nancy Cruzan, the first “right to die” case to come before it. The purpose of this statement is to clarify the meaning of that case in order to prevent misinterpretation that might lead to serious adverse consequences for hopelessly ill patients, their families, and health care professionals. First, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of competent patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment. Second, the Court did not treat the forgoing of artificial nutrition and hydration differently from the forgoing of other forms of medical treatment.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	686-687
Number of pages	2
Journal	New England Journal of Medicine
Volume	323
Issue number	10
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199009063231020
State	Published - Sep 6 1990

ASJC Scopus subject areas

General Medicine

Access to Document

10.1056/NEJM199009063231020

Cite this

Annas, G. J., Arnold, B., Aroskar, M., Battin, P., Bartels, D., Beauchamp, T., Brock, D., Buchanan, A., Caplan, A., Cohen, C., Cranford, R., Dresser, R., Dubler, N., Faden, R., Fost, N., Frader, J., Francis, L., Grodin, M., Hackler, C., ... Youngner, S. (1990). Bioethicists’ Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court's Cruzan Decision. New England Journal of Medicine, 323(10), 686-687. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199009063231020

Annas, GJ, Arnold, B, Aroskar, M, Battin, P, Bartels, D, Beauchamp, T, Brock, D, Buchanan, A, Caplan, A, Cohen, C, Cranford, R, Dresser, R, Dubler, N, Faden, R, Fost, N, Frader, J, Francis, L, Grodin, M, Hackler, C, Jennings, B, Lappe, M, Macklin, R, Mayo, D, Meisel, A, Miles, S, Morreim, H, Nelson, LJ, Parker, L, Pearlman, R, Self, D, Shapiro, R, Walters, J, Wear, S, Weir, R, Wikler, D & Youngner, S 1990, 'Bioethicists’ Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court's Cruzan Decision', New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 323, no. 10, pp. 686-687. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199009063231020

@article{c6f4bf07fd2f4852ad6e52003ef46e26,

title = "Bioethicists{\textquoteright} Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court's Cruzan Decision",

abstract = "On June 25, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the case of Nancy Cruzan, the first “right to die” case to come before it. The purpose of this statement is to clarify the meaning of that case in order to prevent misinterpretation that might lead to serious adverse consequences for hopelessly ill patients, their families, and health care professionals. First, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of competent patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment. Second, the Court did not treat the forgoing of artificial nutrition and hydration differently from the forgoing of other forms of medical treatment.",

author = "Annas, {George J.} and Bob Arnold and Mila Aroskar and Peggy Battin and Dianne Bartels and Tom Beauchamp and Daniel Brock and Allen Buchanan and Arthur Caplan and Cynthia Cohen and Ronald Cranford and Rebecca Dresser and Nancy Dubler and Ruth Faden and Norman Fost and Joel Frader and Leslie Francis and Michael Grodin and Chris Hackler and Bruce Jennings and Marc Lappe and Ruth Macklin and David Mayo and Alan Meisel and Steven Miles and Haavi Morreim and Nelson, {Lawrence J.} and Lisa Parker and Robert Pearlman and Donnie Self and Robyn Shapiro and James Walters and Stephen Wear and Robert Weir and Daniel Wikler and Stuart Youngner",

year = "1990",

month = sep,

day = "6",

doi = "10.1056/NEJM199009063231020",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "323",

pages = "686--687",

journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",

issn = "0028-4793",

publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",

number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bioethicists’ Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court's Cruzan Decision

AU - Annas, George J.

AU - Arnold, Bob

AU - Aroskar, Mila

AU - Battin, Peggy

AU - Bartels, Dianne

AU - Beauchamp, Tom

AU - Brock, Daniel

AU - Buchanan, Allen

AU - Caplan, Arthur

AU - Cohen, Cynthia

AU - Cranford, Ronald

AU - Dresser, Rebecca

AU - Dubler, Nancy

AU - Faden, Ruth

AU - Fost, Norman

AU - Frader, Joel

AU - Francis, Leslie

AU - Grodin, Michael

AU - Hackler, Chris

AU - Jennings, Bruce

AU - Lappe, Marc

AU - Macklin, Ruth

AU - Mayo, David

AU - Meisel, Alan

AU - Miles, Steven

AU - Morreim, Haavi

AU - Nelson, Lawrence J.

AU - Parker, Lisa

AU - Pearlman, Robert

AU - Self, Donnie

AU - Shapiro, Robyn

AU - Walters, James

AU - Wear, Stephen

AU - Weir, Robert

AU - Wikler, Daniel

AU - Youngner, Stuart

PY - 1990/9/6

Y1 - 1990/9/6

N2 - On June 25, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the case of Nancy Cruzan, the first “right to die” case to come before it. The purpose of this statement is to clarify the meaning of that case in order to prevent misinterpretation that might lead to serious adverse consequences for hopelessly ill patients, their families, and health care professionals. First, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of competent patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment. Second, the Court did not treat the forgoing of artificial nutrition and hydration differently from the forgoing of other forms of medical treatment.

AB - On June 25, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the case of Nancy Cruzan, the first “right to die” case to come before it. The purpose of this statement is to clarify the meaning of that case in order to prevent misinterpretation that might lead to serious adverse consequences for hopelessly ill patients, their families, and health care professionals. First, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of competent patients to refuse life-sustaining treatment. Second, the Court did not treat the forgoing of artificial nutrition and hydration differently from the forgoing of other forms of medical treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025146005&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025146005&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1056/NEJM199009063231020

DO - 10.1056/NEJM199009063231020

M3 - Editorial

C2 - 2385279

AN - SCOPUS:0025146005

SN - 0028-4793

VL - 323

SP - 686

EP - 687

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

IS - 10

ER -

Bioethicists’ Statement on the U.S. Supreme Court's Cruzan Decision

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this