154 Alan Sokobin
articulated by the report of the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine.2%
A New Jersey court attempted to face up to the ethical conundrums imposed upon society when life is merely existence.?”” Claire C. Conroy was an eighty-four year old who suffered from organic brain syndrome.?”® Miss Conroy died prior to the hearing of the superior court.” The court noted that“Conroy’s death has rendered the issues that underlie this appeal moot.”“Nevertheless,[the court] conclude[d] that the importance of the issues presented by this appeal requires their resolution notwithstanding their mootness.”?"! Following the court's statement of its holding it turned to the ethical questions that beset it.?!2
The ethical question implicit in the decision whether to discontinue life-sustaining measures has traditionally been expressed by the distinction between“ordinary” and“extraordinary” treatment. The standard definition of these terms is given as follows: Ordinary means all medicines, treatments, and operations which offer a reasonable hope of benefit and which can be obtained and used without excessive expense, pain, or other inconvenience. Extraordinary means are all medicines, treatments and operations which cannot be obtained or used without excessive expense, pain or other inconvenience, or if used, would not offer a reasonable hope of benefit.?!?
In response to the fact pattern of this case the court refused to determine the issue of removing a patient from life support system equipment.“The present appeal is not the proper vehicle by which to resolve this issue, and we expressly decline to do so.”2!4 Nonetheless, it approvingly quoted from the report of the President’s Commission that strongly suggests that there could well be situations in which the court would permit such action.?5
The moral and legal issues presented by increasing requests for removal of terminal patients from life support equipment accelerated. In a 1986 Massachusetts case? Paul Brophy, age 45, suffered extensive brain damage and lapsed into a permanent coma as the result of a burst blood vessel near his brain. 2” His family requested that he be removed from a feeding tube but the hospital and the physicians refused their request.?'® In a Solomonic decision the court ruled that the feeding tube could be removed but that the physicians and the hospital could not be compelled to assist.>’ While Massachusetts had not then adopted the Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act?? the