TOPIC OF THE WEEK

Home

Years after a horrible car accident, Robert Wendland exists in a hospital bed with his eyes open; he is concious, but he is unable to speak, walk, or feed himself. Wendland's wife and three children wish to remove the tube that provides him with food and water. However his mother and sister insist that he continue to receive the life-sustaining treatment. What began as a family disagreement has escalated into a major right-to-die case. The two sides began arguing their case before the California Supreme Court May 30. The central issue is whether to allow the removal of life-sustaining treatment for those who some doctors describe as "minimally conscious."

In 1995, Rose Wendland asked that her husband's feeding tube not be reinserted after coming out. The hospital's ethics committee agreed to her request. However after receiving a call from a hospital staff member, Robert Wendland's mother, Florence, obtained a restraining order preventing her son's wife from taking any action. A trial judge ruled in favor of Wendland's mother initally. However, the ruling was overturned by a state appeals court in February 2000. The state court reasoned that the law in California involving such matters requires only that Rose Wendland, as her husband's conservator, act in good faith.

Florence Wendland and her daughter are challenging the law in California that specifically gives conservators the authority to make medical decisions for a patient as long as they act in good faith based upon medical advice.

Rose Wendland, backed by bioethics and medical groups, says that she is fullfilling her husband's stated, but unwritten wishes not to be on life-support. Robert's mother and sister say the law leaves mentally disabled people at the mercy of conservators, and they warn of a "slippery slope" if the court allows Rose Wendland to withdraw her husband's feeding tube.

Should the California Supreme Court reaffirm the findings of the state appeals court and allow the removal of the feeding tube?

Ought the judges side with Robert's mother? Should a higher standard of proof be required in cases where a surrogate decision maker literally could decide matters of life and death?

For more detail on the Wendland case, see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/05/30/MN111974.DTL

*From, Harriet Chiang, San Francisco Chronicle, May 30, 2001.