Cruzan vs. Missouri Department of Health, Essay Example

The facts for the case entailed the involvement of Nancy Beth Cruzan in a vehicle accident in 1983, which conditioned her in an “obstinate vegetative condition.” The condition that Cruzan was forced in required artificial feedings through a fixed gastronomy tube. At this time, Cruzan was incompetent, and her parents were making most of her decisions within the Missouri Department of Health that Cruzan was being treated. Her parents struggled to have her life-support system feeding terminated, which required the Missouri state officials within the hospital to end the process, which they refused without court approval. The case was said on December 6, 1989, and decided on June 25th the following year (“Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)”).

It is a requirement for all health care professionals to operate under certain standards that guide how and why they make certain decisions. In a situation where the termination of life support decision needs to be made, a convincing and robust indication of the individual’s refusal to receive the support (“Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)”). The main issue of the case if the Cruzan’s parents demanded the termination of their daughter’s life support system since she was ineffectual in making such a decision in which the Missouri Department of Health officials refused to obey (“Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)”). According to the Missouri state health operation code of conduct, health care professionals are not required to decide to end a patient’s life without their approval or court order.

The Missouri Department of Health held that Cruzan’s parents must produce a court approval for the process to be undertaken. On opening a trial against the health care officials, the Missouri Supreme Court gave a ruling which favored the hospital officials of the issue of Cruzan’s right to refuse treatment (“Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)”). The reasoning for the case that the Missouri Supreme Court gave was that the Missouri state hospital’s desires to preserve human life were constitutional. The evidence was clear and convincing; thus, Cruzan’s parents had no case to argue against the Missouri state hospital. Also, the court indicated that individuals could refuse medical treatment, but if incompetent, the individual will no longer have that right (“Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)”). Correspondingly, there was no guarantee that the family decided with the Cruzan’s interest in incompetency rather than personal reasons. If the decision was made, it could not be reversed, thus unethical.

The United States constitution does not provide a clear angle on what privacy rights are protected. However, some amendments provide some provisions on safeguarding personal information from public scrutiny and a person’s health information. Bridges (2017) asserts that the First Amendment defends the secrecy of beliefs; the Third Amendment shields the confidentiality of homes against use by armed forces, the Fourth Amendment guard’s secrecy against irrational searches by government officials. At the same time, the Fifth Amendment defends against self-incrimination (Bridges, 2017). The “Due Process Clause” present in the Fourteenth Amendment speaks of citizens’ right to privacy (Bridges, 2017). In light, it states that no state is allowed to enforce any law to citizens to affect their privileges and also deprive any individual’s life, property, or liberty without the process of law. Though, despite the provisions in the various amendments about privacy, the Constitution has not effectively protected citizens against the right of privacy (Bridges, 2017). The government can invade some privacy considerations like in health care when the patient is incapacitated, during a criminal investigation if the person is obstructing justice, or if an individual hosts or deals with terrorists.

References

Bridges, K. M. (2017). The poverty of privacy rights. Stanford University Press.

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990). Justia Law. (, 1990). Retrieved 22 September 2020, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/497/261/.