No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Case of Earle Spring: Terminating Treatment on the Senile
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Extract
Since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's opinion in Saikewicz, a great deal of controversy has existed over going to court prior to discontinuing or deciding not to commence medical care for the benefit of an incompetent person; the use of do not resuscitate (DNR) orders; the role of the family in making such decisions; the recognition of “brain death;” and the use of the incompetent's “quality of life” as a basis for making such determinations. Both the legal and medical communities waited expectantly while the Supreme Judicial Court considered the case of Earle N. Spring, with the hope that the court would resolve at least some of these issues. The opinion did clarify a number of important issues, but either did not deal with, or confused, others.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1980
References
Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 370 N.E.2d 417 (Mass. 1977).Google Scholar
In the Matter of Earle Spring, 405 N.E.2d 115 (Mass. 1980).Google Scholar
Id. at 120 (emphasis added).Google Scholar
Id. at 121.Google Scholar
Id. at 122.Google Scholar
Id. at 119.Google Scholar
In the Matter of Shirley Dinnerstein, 380 N.E.2d 134 (Mass. App. Ct. 1978).Google Scholar
Saikewicz, supra note 1, at 432.Google Scholar
Spring, supra note 2, at 118.Google Scholar
Saikewicz, supra note 1, at 431.Google Scholar