A society will be judged on how it treats those in the dawn of
life, those in the twilight of life, and those in the shadow of life.
Senator Hubert Humphrey.
They are dictating how medicine should be practiced. You know the
court is dominated by religion ... 'Life is sanctity, this and that
...' The problem with medicine today is that it's under the Dark-Age
mentality of mystical religion, which has permeated medicine to the
core since Christianity took over.
Jack ("The Dripper") Kevorkian.
The Courts: Engine for Social Change.
The Supreme Court of the United States has decisively rejected its
role as the interpreter of the Constitution and has transmogrified
itself into the greatest engine for social change our country has ever
The people will not accept the far-Left agenda, because it flies in
the face of common sense and decency. And the state legislatures are
still close enough to the people, in general, to reflect this viewpoint.
Even Congress, populated by reelection-minded political animals,
wouldn't dream of enacting most of the pro-abortion, pro-sodomy
Neoliberal wish list.
So who is responsible for the social revolution that has been
sweeping our country since 1965?
The United States Supreme Court.
The Court started the euthanasia 'ball' rolling with its 1965 Griswold
v. Connecticut decision, in which it defined for the first time a
mythical 'privacy right' that had somehow escaped the notice of the
entire system of government for two centuries. This decision held that
married couples should have unrestricted access to artificial
The Paramount 'Right to Privacy.'
The 'right' to privacy is critical to Neoliberal thinking.
Anti-lifers find themselves compelled to kill preborn babies and
bothersome newborns and adults, engage in sodomy, and perform other
unspeakable acts. Such activities cannot be justified by any stretch of
the imagination, so they must be hidden.
This privacy 'right' was extended drastically in the Court's 1973 Roe
v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. And now, the 'right to
privacy' is being used to obtain euthanasia on demand.
Since 1973, many courts have dealt with the active and passive
euthanasia question, and the overall pattern is an ominous shift towards
the elimination of those whose lives are judged to be "devoid of
Description of the
The following court cases describe with crystal clarity the trend
from abortion on demand to infanticide to passive euthanasia to active
euthanasia. As time passes, the requirements for
"rubber-stamping" euthanasia inevitably become looser and
looser, just as they did for abortion. The final result will be, as the
Hemlock Society desires, the 'right' to kill oneself at any time, for
any reason, or the 'right' to demand that a licensed euthanasiast do the
job for you.
In other words, euthanasia on demand.
Next will come the elimination of those who are deemed to be a burden
to individuals or society. And, ultimately, we will begin eliminating
'useless eaters' unless we can stop this death machine in its tracks.
Listing of the Cases.
The first three decisions described below are probably acceptable in
their own right to most anti-euthanasia activists. The persons
described could have only been kept alive by truly extraordinary
However, these three cases still fit into the overall pattern of
eventually classifying even food and water as "extraordinary
The 16 cases described in this chapter are listed below.
LIST OF IMPORTANT EUTHANASIA-RELATED COURT DECISIONS
Case # 1: Karen Ann Quinlan 1976
Case # 2: Joseph Saikewicz 1977
Case # 3: Brother Joseph Fox 1981
Case # 4: Baby Doe of Bloomington 1982
Case # 5: Clarence Herbert 1983
Case # 6: Claire Conroy 1985
Case # 7: Helen Corbett 1986
Case # 8: Paul Brophy 1986
Case # 9: Elizabeth Bouvia 1986
Case #10: Hector Rodas 1987
Case #11: Nancy Ellen Jobes 1987
Case #12: Marcia Gray 1987
Case #13: Ione Bayer 1987
Case #14: Mary O'Connor 1988
Case #15: Nancy Cruzan 1988
Case #16: Carrie Coons 1989
Karen Ann Quinlan
Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1976
Karen Ann Quinlan, 21, stopped breathing for unknown reasons and
suffered irreversible brain damage. She lapsed into a deep coma, but
continued to show minimal brain activity. Because of this brain
activity, she could not be legally declared dead, and so was kept alive
on a respirator. Quinlan's father petitioned the Court to allow her
doctors to let her die by disconnecting her from her life support
The Court ordered that Quinlan be removed from the respirator, if her
doctors and the hospital agreed. The appended opinion expanded the
'right to privacy' found in the Roe v. Wade decision to include
the right to refuse treatment. Essentially, the Court held that a
patient no longer able to communicate may now exercise this 'right'
through a family member or duly authorized guardian.
Supreme Court of Massachusetts, 1977
Joseph Saikewicz had been severely retarded since birth and was
confined to a mental institution. He had developed incurable leukemia,
and his doctors were willing to prolong his life with standard
chemotherapy. His guardian asked that he not be treated.
The Court held that the pain and fear that Saikewicz would suffer far
outweighed any benefit of treatment to him. The ruling revolved upon on
what he would have said if he could have spoken in his own behalf. The
Court extended the Quinlan decision by stating that persons who
have never been able to make judgments for themselves have the 'right to
Later decisions in the Massachusetts court held that families and
physicians could make such judgments without even going to court.
Brother Joseph Fox
New York Court of Appeals, 1981
An 83-year old monk, Brother Joseph Fox, lapsed into a permanent coma
during surgery. His superior stated that he would not want his life
extended by 'extraordinary measures,' and said that, in accordance with
Catholic doctrine, his respirator could be removed.
The court found that Brother Fox's refusal of treatment (expressed
while he was still conscious) was legally binding, and ordered the
hospital to disconnect the respirator and let him die.
Supreme Court of Indiana, 1982
This pitiful case really crossed the line between what most pro-life
activists find to be justifiable and unjustifiable regarding euthanasia.
It revolved around a tiny baby boy born with Down's syndrome and a
breathing defect that hampered his swallowing as well. The defect could
have been corrected easily with surgery, and literally hundreds of
couples begged to adopt him.
However, the Court held that the parent's right to privacy was
more important than this born baby's right to live! The
baby died in agony just days before the appeal reached the United States
This heartless judgement caused so much consternation that a Federal
law was passed in 1984 that prohibits the withholding of "medically
indicated" treatment from any disabled newborn.
However, a later judgement in New York (the Baby Jane Doe
case) found that parents of an infant with spina bifida and other
non-life threatening disabilities could choose to "treat"
their little baby "passively" with adequate food, antibiotics,
and dressings. In other words, all the parents are legally obligated to
do is keep the child comfortable and hope that he or she dies.
California Court of Appeals, 1983
55-year old Clarence Herbert suffered a heart attack during surgery
and lapsed into a permanent coma. His family asked doctors to remove his
respirator, which they did, and they then discontinued intravenous
feeding. A week later, he died. Nurses called the District Attorney's
office, and doctors Neil Barber and Robert Nejdl were charged with
The doctors were convicted, but the appeals court reversed the ruling
on the grounds that withholding life support and food was a passive
omission, not an aggressive action designed to murder.
This same rationale is used to justify ten thousand cases of
euthanasia every year in Holland.
New Jersey Supreme Court, January 17, 1985
Claire Conroy, at 84 years old, was conscious but confused, and could
only be fed intravenously. She was unable to swallow or communicate, and
was expected to die within one year in her current condition. Her nephew
sought to have her feeding tube removed. However, Conroy died while the
court deliberated the case.
This court decision set narrow limits upon withholding care when the
patient clearly would have refused treatment and when evidence
exists to prove this point; when the cost of care outweighs the
benefits; or when no evidence shows that the patient would have refused
treatment, but the burdens of care outweigh the benefits, and the
patient would suffer 'inhumane' pain.
The significance of this case is profound: The Court held that food
and water is in the same category as artificial respirators and other
medical treatment and may be withdrawn as "extraordinary
The same Court vastly expanded the pool of patients who could be
denied basic care just two years later in the Nancy Jobes case
Florida Court of Appeals, April 18, 1986
Helen Corbett was a 75-year old terminally ill and incompetent
patient being sustained on a feeding tube.
The Florida Court of Appeals decided that "a penumbral right to
privacy" allowed the patient or a third party acting for her to
refuse artificially administered food and water, even with a State law
in place prohibiting such withdrawal.
Supreme Court of Massachusetts, September 11, 1986
A blood vessel burst in 45-year old Paul Brophy's brain, damaging it
extensively and plunging him into a permanent coma. His family wanted to
have his life support disconnected, but the hospital refused to
cooperate. The family filed suit.
The court found that Brophy, were he conscious, would want the
feeding tube and life support systems disconnected. The court also found
that Brophy could not be kept alive without his consent, and that the
hospital and doctors could not be forced to cooperate in his killing.
Brophy was moved out of the hospital, his life support was disconnected,
and he died.
Paul Brophy was the first person in the United States to die as a
direct result of court-ordered starvation.
California Court of Appeals, April 16, 1986
In this widely-publicized killing, Elizabeth Bouvia, a 28-year old
quadriplegic with cerebral palsy, bedridden and in constant pain,
expressed a desire to die. The hospital staff had earlier began to feed
her intravenously against her wishes. She asked a court to order that
the tube be removed. The court refused, and Bouvia appealed.
The resultant frightening decision took a long step towards
legalizing and abetting suicide. This was the first court decision that
upheld a right to assisted suicide.
The majority opinion argued that the medical profession and the State
should be "... permitting and in fact assisting the patient to die
with ease and dignity."
The ruling held that a patient need not be in a coma or near death to
decline treatment. The 'right to privacy' may decide whether or not his
or her 'quality of life' is sufficient to go on living. The court
decided that motives play no important part in such a decision, and
ordered that the feeding tube be removed.
Thus, the right to privacy, found nowhere in the United States
Constitution, has led first to the total legalization of artificial
contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), the legalization of
abortion (Roe v. Wade), the legalization of infanticide (Baby
Doe), and now the legalization of involuntary passive euthanasia (Bouvia).
The progression down the slippery slope could not possibly be
There are only two steps remaining: (1) the legalization of voluntary
active euthanasia, and (2) the legalization of involuntary active
As Chapter 112 describes, both of these are stated objectives of the
Colorado District Court, January 23, 1987
34-year old Hector Rodas suffered a drug-induced stroke and became a
quadriplegic. He was competent (mentally alert), but unable to swallow
or talk. He was not terminally ill, and was being fed with a nasogastric
The Colorado District Court held that the patient has " ... the
right to accept or withdraw feeding and hydration treatment." The
public hospital caring for Rodas was ordered to withdraw his feeding,
despite protests by hospital personnel that they felt they would be
participating in a suicide. The Court further ordered the hospital to
provide Rodas nursing care until he died of starvation after 15 days.
This is the first case where a Court was petitioned to allow a lethal
injection. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had requested a
lethal injection for the dying Rodas, but later withdrew its petition.
This case is also disturbing because the consciences and the beliefs
of the health care workers were utterly disregarded.
Nancy Ellen Jobes
New Jersey Supreme Court, June 24, 1987
Nancy Ellen Jobes was 32 years old and severely brain damaged. She
could follow people with her eyes and respond to commands and various
stimuli. She was being sustained with a feeding tube, but was not
The Court ordered Jobes' nursing home staff to stop her feeding, but
her family moved her to another facility that starved her to death over
a period of 19 days.
This case vastly expanded the pool of patients whose food and water
could be withdrawn, even if the patient had never expressed a desire
for such action. In other words, third parties who could "best
understand the patient's personal values and beliefs" could
substitute their judgment for the patient's.
The Court also ruled that, from this point onward, no Court hearing
was necessary for health care facilities to gain permission to stop the
feeding of a patient or patients.
This means that, in New Jersey at least, a family that is awaiting an
inheritance or just cannot be bothered to participate in the upkeep of a
relative any more may have the patient starved to death, even if the
patient had expressed no such wish.
This is the definition of involuntary euthanasia.
This was the same Court that would have allowed the starvation of
Claire Conroy just two years earlier (this case is described above).
Rhode Island District Court, October 1987
49-year old Marcia Gray had been comatose since January of 1986. She
and her family had expressed a wish that extraordinary measures not be
implemented to extend her life. District Court Judge Francis Boyle ruled
that the state-run General Hospital must remove her feeding tube or
transfer her to an institution that would carry out this wish. The
General Hospital subsequently contacted 274 nursing homes and hospitals
in the New England area, but none were willing to accept the patient for
the sole purpose of executing her.
At this point, Rhode Island governor Edward DiPrete intervened and
ordered the hospital to disconnect her feeding tube. This order was not
appealable. On October 17, 1988, District Court Judge Francis Boyle
ruled that Marcia Gray could be starved and dehydrated to death. On
November 16, she was transferred to South County Hospital. Dr. Robert L.
Conrad of the hospital was so eager to kill Gray that he removed her
feeding tube in the ambulance on the trip to South County!
Marcia Gray took 15 long, agonizing days to die, during which time
she lost fifty pounds. She had to be heavily sedated to suppress her
This case and the subsequent actions by the State are foreboding
harbingers of things to come. If hospitals adhere to some kind of
respect for life, they will be overridden by the State. Additionally, if
General Hospital had not been able to find another institution willing
to murder Gray, the hospital's personnel would have been forced to kill
her over their moral and religious objections or face long jail terms
for contempt of court.
The Director of the Rhode Island State Department of Mental Health
and Hospitals, Thomas D. Romeo, said in an October 28, 1988 Providence
Journal interview that this series of State actions would reawaken
the old image of state hospitals as the dumping ground for patients, a
"boneyard" where they are sent to die.
John Breguet, general counsel for the Rhode Island Department of
Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals, voiced the fears of many when
he said, "Once we establish as a societal philosophy that society
has a right to terminate some life that society thinks is not worth
living, it is not hat far to go to the profoundly retarded, those with
severe mental problems, or those with serious physical handicaps."
Of profound significance was the fact that Judge Boyle relied heavily
on the 1973 abortion decision Roe v. Wade to affirm the principle
"that a person has the right ... to control fundamental decisions
involving his or her own body." Thus, the direct link between
abortion and euthanasia is, at last, directly and irrevocably drawn for
all to see.
Any pro-life activist who encounters a person disclaiming any
connection between abortion and euthanasia should describe this court
case to them.
North Dakota County Court, December 11, 1987
Ione Bayer was a 62-year old woman in a persistent coma induced by a
The North Dakota Court ruled that even food placed in a person's
mouth is "artificial and intrusive," and a family could order
such feeding stopped without Court intervention, and without
confirmation from the patient.
The Court ordered Bayer's doctor to stop feeding her, but the doctor
refused. In fact, no other doctor would agree to starve her to death.
Ione Bayer's family therefore took her home and starved her to death.
It took her a week to die.
New York Court of Appeals, October 15, 1988
77-year old Mary O'Connor was conscious and able to respond to
questions most of the time. She was fed by an intravenous line. Doctors
sought to have a nasogastric tube inserted in order to provide adequate
nutrition, but Mrs. O'Connor's two daughters sued to block this action
and to have the IV removed.
The New York Court of Appeals ruled that there was not enough
"clear and convincing" evidence that Mrs. O'Connor wanted to
die, in spite of her statements to the effect of "I don't want to
be a burden" and "I don't want to lose my dignity before I
The Court held that a patient must have a "firm and settled
commitment" to ending treatment before becoming incompetent, and
ruled that vague statements like those mentioned above did not provide
proof enough that a patient wanted to be unhooked from life support
Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of Health
Missouri Supreme Court, November 16, 1988
On January 11, 1983, 25-year old Nancy Cruzan was driving alone on an
icy road, lost control of her vehicle, and was seriously injured in the
resulting accident. She never regained consciousness and became one of
the approximately ten thousand Americans living in a persistent comatose
Her medical status was that of a "severely handicapped"
person. She required no life support machinery other than a feeding tube
implanted in her stomach in early 1983. She was not terminally ill.
However, she was now an inconvenience to many people; the health care
system, the state, and in particular her parents, Joe and Joyce Cruzan.
But she was the opportunity of a lifetime for pro-euthanasiasts.
In order to kill Cruzan, it was necessary to first dehumanize her, a
task willingly and expertly taken up by Dr. Fred Plum, Chief of
Neurology at the Cornell New York Hospital.
During testimony, he referred to her as a mere "collection of
organs" and an "artifact of technological medicine."
In an interview with Nat Hentoff, Dr. Ronald Granford observed that
she was the "moral equivalent of a biopsy from Nat Hentoff's
arm," and asserted that her "legal personhood" should be
removed so she could be disposed of or experimented upon without the
bother of having to go to court.
Just as the unborn are being referred to as "pre-human,"
those in a coma are now commonly referred to by physicians as
Nancy's parents petitioned a lower court to order the Missouri
Rehabilitation Center at Mount Vernon to allow their daughter to die.
This court granted the petition, but the Missouri Supreme Court
overturned the lower court decision, stating that a decision to withhold
or refuse treatment must be an "informed" one, and, most
importantly, that a state's interest in human life does not depend on
the quality of that life.
On appeal, the case Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Department of
Health became the first to directly address the question of
euthanasia at the United States Supreme Court level.
In a stunning victory for life, the Supreme Court narrowly averted
making this case the euthanasiast's Roe v. Wade by denying that
the so-called "right to die" is unfettered and absolute. The
justices ruled that the States may require "clear and
convincing" evidence that a comatose person actually wished to die
before they lost their ability to decide their fates for themselves.
The Court essentially held that the States do not have to buckle
under to family member's demands when a patient's wishes cannot be
However, the ruling indicated that there is a Constitutional right to
refuse tube feeding and other life-sustaining measures when patients
make their wishes clearly known before they become incompetent.
So a determined Joe and Joyce Cruzan headed back to the Missouri
courts, and rounded up a string of Nancy's co-workers who were willing
to testify that she would never want to live "like a
vegetable." Nobody bothered to explain how her co-workers could all
remember such a statement so clearly after more than eight years.
Nancy did not enjoy any kind of representation in the State court;
nobody testified for her, because all of those who wanted her to live
were ruled nonparties by the judge. The outcome of the one-sided hearing
was a foregone conclusion.
So Nancy was sentenced to death. Her feeding tube was removed on
December 14, 1990 at the Missouri Rehabilitation Center in Mount Vernon,
In a chilling portent of the future, the first rescue mission staged
to save a born person from death occurred on Tuesday, December
18, 1990. 19 persons were arrested as they tried to reach Nancy's
hospital room. They were charged with the same offenses they encountered
at abortion mills; criminal trespass and unlawful assembly.
Scores of armed police officers patrolled the halls of the Missouri
Rehabilitation Center (George Orwell would be proud!) until she finally
died of starvation and thirst after 12 days, on the day after Christmas
Doron Webster of the New York chapter of the Society for the Right to
Die stated ominously that "We feel that Nancy Cruzan has made legal
New York State District Court, April 4, 1989
Carrie Coons was an 86-year old woman in a "persistently
vegetative state." She was not terminally ill. She was being
sustained only by a gastronomy tube in April of 1989, when this case was
The Court had originally approved the removal of Mrs. Coon's
gastronomy tube, but delayed the actual order for two weeks so that a
facility could be found that would starve her.
During this grace period, Mrs. Coon's roommate and several nurses
"weaned" her off the gastronomy tube and began feeding her by
mouth. She recovered completely.
After the order to withdraw treatment had been rescinded, the Court
asked Dr. Michael Wolff, one of Mrs. Coon's physicians and a nationally
recognized expert in geriatric medicine, how doctors could accurately
foretell how long a person would remain in (or even if they would
remain in) a "persistent vegetative state."
Dr. Wolff replied that "I don't think there is any mechanism to
establish that with absolute certainty."
References: Court Decisions on Euthanasia.
 Dr. Jack Kevorkian, quoted in Sarah Sullivan. "Kevorkian:
The Rube Goldberg of Death." Cornerstone, Volume 19, Issue
93, pages 14 and 15.
 Debra Braun. "Karen Ann Quinlan Dies of Pneumonia at
31." National Right to Life News, June 20, 1985, page 15.
 The following articles on the Baby Doe case may be found in the National
Right to Life News. (1) Burke Balch. "Caplan's Criticisms of
[Baby Doe] Regs Way Off Mark." April 11, 1985, page 3. (2) David H.
Andrusko. "Breathing Room." April 11, 1985, page 2. Article on
the "Baby Doe" regulations: The 1984 Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act. (3) Debra Braun. "Three Years After Infant
Doe." April 11, 1985, page 6. (4) James Bopp, Jr. "Health and
Human Services Appeals Verdict in Original "Baby Doe" Regs
Case to Supreme Court." May 2, 1985, page 11.
 Leslie Bond. "Cases Test Boundaries of Conroy
Decision." National Right to Life News, November 21, 1985,
pages 5 and 9. The cases of Hilda Peter and Nancy Ellen Jobes and how
they relate to the Conroy decision.
 Leslie Bond. "Florida Appeals Court Authorizes Withdrawal of
Food and Water." National Right to Life News, May 15, 1986,
pages 1 and 9.
 The following articles on the Paul Brophy case may be found in
the National Right to Life News. (1) Front Line Updates.
"Wife Wants to Starve Comatose Husband." May 30, 1985, page 4.
(2) David B. Wilson. "Life Leaves Few Simple Questions."
December 5, 1985, page 11. Paul Brophy and the uncertainty of
euthanasia. (3) Leslie Bond. "Judge Refuses to Halt Feeding of Man
in Comatose Condition." November 7, 1985, pages 1 and 11. (4)
Leslie Bond. "Paul Brophy: Attorney to Approach Supreme
Court." October 9, 1986, page 4. (5) David H. Andrusko. "Brophy
Dies Eight Days After Nourishment Withdrawn." November 6, 1986,
page 1 and 15. (6) "The Full Dissent of Justice Francis O'Connor of
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the Case of Paul Brophy."
November 6, 1986, page 8. (7) David H. Andrusko. "The Bottom of the
Slope." November 6, 1986, pages 2 and 9. (8) Nat Hentoff.
"Come Sweet Death." October 15, 1987, pages 6 and 9. Paul
Brophy and the process of dehydration.
 The following articles on the Elizabeth Bouvia case may be found
in the National Right to Life News. (1) David H. Andrusko.
"Court Opens Gates to Assisted Suicide in Bouvia
Decision." May 1, 1986, pages 1 and 17. (2) Paul K. Longmore.
"Urging the Handicapped to Die." June 12, 1986, page 6.
 The following articles on the Hector Rodas case may be found in
the National Right to Life News. (1) David H. Andrusko. "Man
Starves Self to Death With Court Approval." February 19, 1987,
pages 1 and 9. (2) David H. Andrusko. "ACLU Filed Lawsuit on Behalf
of Colorado Quadriplegic Seeking Assisted Suicide." April 30, 1987,
pages 8 and 14.
 The following articles on the Nancy Ellen Jobes case may be found
in the National Right to Life News. (1) Leslie Bond. "Cases
Test Boundaries of Conroy Decision." November 21, 1985,
pages 5 and 9. Hilda Peter and Nancy Ellen Jobes. (2) "Family
Returns to Court to Force Nursing Home to Starve Woman." April 10,
1986, page 8. (3) Leslie Bond. "New Jersey Court Authorizes
Dehydration Death of Patient." May 1, 1986. Back cover. (4) Leslie
Bond. "Jobes Decision to be Appealed by Nursing Home and by Public
Advocate." May 29, 1986, pages 1 and 5. (5) Leslie Bond. "New
Jersey High Court Asked to Extend 'Right to Die.' " November 20,
1986, pages 5 and 10. Nancy Ellen Jobes, Kathleen Farrell, and Hilda
Peter. (6) David H. Andrusko. "Catholic Health Association, New
Jersey Bishops Clash Over Providing Food and Water." March 19,
1987, pages 1 and 8. (7) David H. Andrusko. "New Jersey Catholic
Conference Files Brief Opposing Withdrawal of Food and Water in Jobes
Case." March 19, 1987, page 5. (8) Leslie Bond. "Nancy Jobes'
Nursing Staff to Receive Florence Nightingale Life Award." May 28,
1987, page 14. (9) David H. Andrusko. "New Jersey High Court Hands
Down Trio of Pro-Euthanasia Decisions." July 2, 1987, pages 1 and
7. Nancy Ellen Jobes and Hilda Peter. (10) Thomas J. Marzen. "Death
and Due Process in New Jersey." July 30, 1987, pages 1 and 8.
 The following articles on the Marcia Gray case may be found in
the National Right to Life News. (1) David H. Andrusko.
"Rhode Island Bishop Statement Endorses Withholding of Food and
Water." February 11, 1988, back cover. (2) Leslie Bond. "Rhode
Island Case Marks First Establishment of Federal Constitutional 'Right'
to Starve Incompetent Patients." November 17, 1988, pages 7 and 11.
(3) Leslie Bond. "Marcia Gray Dies After Feeding Tube Withdrawn;
Breguet Assails Notion of 'Life Not Worth Living.' " December 15,
1988, pages 3 and 10. (4) Nat Hentoff. "Marcia Gray: Legalizing
Death By Starvation." February 1, 1989, pages 4 and 5.
 The following articles on the Ione Bayer case may be found in
the National Right to Life News. (1) David H. Andrusko. "No
Resolution in Sight Over Fight to Feed Ione Bayer." February 11,
1988, pages 7 and 9. (2) "Ione Bayer Dies." April 21, 1988,
 The following articles on the Mary O'Connor case may be found in
the National Right to Life News. (1) Leslie Bond. "Conscious
Patient May Be Starved to Death At Daughter's Request, NY Court
Rules." September 12, 1988, page 9. (2) Leslie Bond.
"Anti-Euthanasia Forces Victorious in New York: Mary O'Connor Will
Receive Food and Water." November 17, 1988, page 15. (3) Nat
Hentoff. "A Tragedy Averted." April 6, 1989, pages 1 and 7.
 "19 Protestors Halted." The Oregonian.
Wednesday, December 19, page A17. Additionally, the following articles
on the Nancy Cruzan case may be found in the National Right to Life
News. (1) Leslie Bond. "State of Missouri Actively Fights
Efforts to Starve Nancy Cruzan." December 17, 1987, pages 1 and 11.
(2) David H. Andrusko. "Missouri Supreme Court to Hear Appeal of
Death-By-Starvation Sentence for Nancy Cruzan." August 25, 1988,
page 6. (3) Samuel Lee and David H. Andrusko. "Missouri Supreme
Court Refuses to Authorize Starvation Death of Nancy Cruzan."
December 5, 1988, pages 1 and 7. (4) "Excerpts From the Nancy
Cruzan Decision." December 5, 1988, page 8. (5) Tom Marzen.
"Nancy Cruzan Case Raises Critical Issues." August 10, 1989,
pages 1 and 10. (6) Nat Hentoff. "Hippocrates and Nancy
Cruzan." September 7, 1989, page 5. (7) David H. Andrusko.
"Nancy Cruzan Should Not Be Starved, Justice Department Says."
November 2, 1989, page 7. (8) Nat Hentoff. "The Ominous
Implications of the Cruzan Case." March 28, 1990, page 11.
(9) David H. Andrusko. "Supreme Court Offers Protection to
Incompetent Patients in Landmark Cruzan Case." June 25,
1990, pages 1 and 12. (10) David H. Andrusko. "Missouri Attorney
General Asks Circuit Court for Permission to Withdraw from New Cruzan
Hearing." October 2, 1990, page 6. (11) David H. Andrusko.
"Judge Allows Attorney General to Withdraw From Cruzan
Case." October 31, 1990, pages 9 and 10. (12) David H. Andrusko.
"Pro-Death Leader Outlines Legislative Strategy." October 31,
1990, page 11. Fallout from the Nancy Cruzan case.
 David Brockbauer. "Pagan Ethics: The Nancy Cruzan
Case." Fidelity Magazine, February 1990, pages 11 to 14.
 Jerry Nachtigal. "Nancy Cruzan Dies Peacefully." The
Oregonian, December 27, 1990, pages 1 and 12.
 The following articles on the Carrie Coons case may be found in
the National Right to Life News. (1) Leslie Bond.
"Starvation Order Hastily Rescinded As Carrie Coons Awakens From
So-Called "Irreversible" PVS." April 27, 1989, pages 5
and 7. (2) Nat Hentoff. "Not 'Hopeless Case' After All." May
11, 1989, page 4.
Further Reading: Court Decisions on Euthanasia.
Father Robert Barry, O.P. Protecting the Medically Dependent:
Social Challenge and Ethical Imperative.
Order from American Life League, Post Office Box 2250, Stafford,
Virginia 22554. How to construct, ethically and legislatively, a proper
plan of protection for the seriously ill.
A.R. Saqueton, M.D. In Defense of Life.
ARS Publishing Company, Post Office Box 6444, Stockton, California
95206. 232 pages, 1981. Reviewed by Felicia Goeken on page 9 of the May
10, 1982 issue of National Right to Life News and page 11 of the
July 8, 1982 issue of the same publication. Also reviewed by Robert L.
Sassone on page 20 of the May 1982 issue of ALL About Issues. One
of the most valuable references available on "right to die"
legislation. The 'Right to Die,' Living Wills, terminal conditions, and
many other aspects of euthanasia are covered in this primer-type work.
Society for the Right to Die. Case Law Fact Sheets.
Society for the Right to Die, 250 West 57th Street, New York, New
York 10107, telephone: (212) 246-6973. Three volumes: Volume I covers
1976 to 1986, Volume II covers 1987 to 1989, and Volume III covers 1990
to the present. Analyses of all of the significant 'right-to-die'
decisions since the Quinlan decision in 1976.
Society for the Right to Die. Refusal of Treatment Legislation:
A State By State Compilation of Enacted and Model Statutes.
Society for the Right to Die, 250 West 57th Street, New York, New
York 10107, telephone: (212) 246-6973. This ring binder includes the
full text of every living will and durable power of attorney statute in
the United States, the model statute entitled the Uniform Rights of the
Terminally Ill Act, and summaries and highlights of the significant
features of all of these documents.
© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111
This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published
by American Life League.