and knows the risks and would not hold the hospital liable. If all of this occurred and the family still wanted him to get treatment there would be nothing left for them to do unless his wife tried to get legal documentation saying she could make his medical choices for him. However, if he was competent enough to make the choices on his own they would not give her any rights to make a different choice for him. “A competent adult patient’s wishes concerning his or her person may not be disregarded. The court in In re Melideo held that every human being of adult years has a right to determine what shall be done with his or her own body and cannot be subjected to medical treatment without his or her consent” (Pozgar, p. 312). 2.After you have reviewed the cases that are posted in the case thread for Week 6 please select one and explain the facts and why you agree, or disagree with the decision.I chose the Bouvia v. Superior Court Cal. Ct. App., (1986) where Bouvia who was a legal adult and a quadriplegic suffering cerebral palsy. Bouvia wanted to die and refused to eat or agree to the stomach tube but the medical staff went against Bouvia wishes which led Bouvia to file an injunction to remove the feeding tube. The court found she could live forever with the feeding tube and denied the injunction because she was not terminally ill. Bouvia appealed and then won the case. I agree that is hard to let someone die when they could live with treatments or help but as the law states it is their decision as long as they are found competent and of legal age. So although I may not agree with it, it is the law and in this case the holding was correct and the patient got her rights back to make her own choices on what care they would receive.
This is the end of the preview.
access the rest of the document.