152 Alan Sokobin
therapy but his guardian requested that he not be treated.'®! The court ruled that the pain of the treatments to Saikewicz would outweigh the benefits.'®? The ruling was based on the presumption that if Saikewicz were competent he would have requested cessation of treatment.'®
Subsequently, the New York Court of Appeals joined two cases'™ with similar questions. Both involved guardians of incompetent patients who objected to the continued use of medical treatments or measures to prolong the lives of the patients whose diagnosis offered no reasonable possibility of recovery. Brother Fox was an eighty-three-year-old member of a Catholic religious order who was being maintained on a respirator while in a chronic vegetative state.'® The facts dealing with the request to remove Brother Fox were attested to by his religious superior who testified that Fox had taught ethics, had been aware of the Quinlan case, and stated that he would not want his own life extended by extraordinary measures.’® The court relied on that testimony to find that Brother Fox had made his determination with regard to the refusal of treatment while he was conscious and rational, and found that to be a legitimate request.'¥” The court quoted the trial court’s decision.“His stated opposition to the use of a respirator to maintain him in a vegetative state was‘unchallenged at every turn and unimpeachable in its sincerity.””1%
The companion case dealt with John Storer who was a profoundly retarded fifty-two-year-old with terminal cancer.’® His mother, who was also his legal guardian, refused consent to administer blood transfusions as they would only prolong his discomfort and would be against his wishes if he were competent.” The court noted that physicians could not be held to have violated either legal or professional responsibilities when responding to the right of a competent patient to decline medical treatment.’” Brother Fox had been competent when he articulated his wish to refuse treatment; Storer was not; mentally he was an infant.’”? The court emphasized the right of an incompetent to medical treatment as well as the limitations placed upon parents and guardians.“A parent or guardian has a right to consent to medical treatment on behalf of an infant. The parent, however, may not deprive a child of lifesaving treatment, however well intentioned.”'%?
Two years later a California case!” expanded the moral dimensions by focusing not on the request of the patient or a