| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Wendland v. Wendland ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Wendland v. Wendland
In 2001, in the case ''Wendland v. Wendland'', also known as the ''Robert Wendland case'', the Supreme Court of California unanimously ruled that Rose Wendland, the wife of Robert Wendland, in absence of a durable power of attorney for health care (DPAHC), did not have the authority to refuse artificial nutrition and hydration on her husbands' behalf. The Court recognized that patients unable to make a decision for themselves should receive special protection according to their constitutional right to life and right to privacy.
==Background==
In 1993, Robert Wendland became permanently physically and mentally disabled after being severely injured in an automobile accident.〔 After spending 16 months in a coma, Robert Wendland emerged with severe cognitive impairment, being unable to "swallow, control his bowels or bladder, communicate verbally or nonverbally, or act volitionally," but he was able to react to simple commands with much repetitive coaching. Robert's wife and children also believed that he was unable to recognize them.
Two years later, after being informed by Robert's physicians that Robert had no reasonable chance of improvement, his wife, Rose, and children requested that Robert's physicians to remove the feeding tube and allow Robert to die.〔 According to Rose and Robert's brother, who had both spoken to Robert before his accident about living on life support or being kept alive through a feeding tube, Robert would not have wanted to live under those conditions.〔
This decision was challenged by Robert's estranged mother, Florence, who sued Rose in order to prevent the removal of feeding tubes from her son, and the lawsuit lasted for six years until the decision made by the Supreme Court of California in 2001.〔
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Wendland v. Wendland」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|