Patients have the right to die—Court

Press, 2 January 1985, Page 9

Patients have the right to die— Court

NZPA-AP Los Angeles Terminally ill patients have the right to refuse medical life support, and doctors who follow their orders are free of liability, a State Appeal Court has ruled. It ruled on the case of a man who died recently after being admitted to hospital with five potentially fatal diseases. In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel of the Second Court of Appeal ruled that William F. Bartling’s refusal of treatment at the Glendale Adventist Medical Centre was a constitutionally guaranteed right which must not be abridged. The ruling also said that hospitals and doctors should be free to act according to the patient’s instruction without fear of liability and without advance court approval.

Mr Bartling, aged 70, who entered Glendale Adventist in April, was still on a hospital respirator when he died on November 6, of lung disease. He had been on the respirator since soon after his admission to the hospital, when a lung collapsed during a biopsy. He suffered from lung cancer, emphysema, heart trouble, arteriosclerosis, and aneurysm. Several times during April, Mr Bartling tried to remove the ventilator tubes, and hospital officials thereafter put restraints on his wrists, Court documents showed. In June, Mr Bartling filed a SUS2O million lawsuit against the hospital for its refusal to disconnect him from the respirator.

In a statement attached to the lawsuit, Mr Bartling said that while he had no

wish to die, he found it intolerable being connected to life support and he wished to take the risk of being disconnected. “It is therefore my intent to refuse to continue on ventilator (respirator) support and thereby to permit the natural process of dying to occur — peacefully, privately, and with dignity,” Mr Bartling’s statement said. His death came the day before the appellate court agreed to hear the case. The appeals judges said the case was important for future right-to-die cases. Mr Bartling’s attorney, Richard Scott, said he was both delighted and saddened by the ruling. “Sadness because William Bartling did not live to see his victory,” Mr Scott said. “This is complete victory him. It is a victory for patients everywhere.”