INFORMING A COMPETENT, NONTERMINAL PATIENT OF ALL OPTIONS FOR
ALTERNATIVE CARE
Kenneth Bergstedt, a 31-year-old quadriplegic, injured at age 10 as a result of a
swimming accident, had been ventilator-dependent and entirely reliant on others for his
bodily functions for over 20 years. His limited entertainment (reading, watching
television, and writing poetry with a computer) also required the attentive care of
others. With his mother's recent death (1978) and his father approaching death, "he
despaired over the prospect of life without the attentive care, companionship, and love
of his devoted father." He also felt uneasy about care at the hands of strangers and
the prospect of an agonizing death should the ventilator malfunction.13
A lower Nevada court ruled that Bergstedt's constitutional privacy right to discontinue
further medical treatment outweighed each of the state's four state interests. But, the
Nevada State Supreme Court went on to identify a fifth state interest for competent
non-terminal patient: "..[to] encourage the charitable and humane care of those whose
lives may be artificially extended under conditions which have the prospect of providing
at least a modicum of quality living.14 M. Rose Gasner, Staff Attorney for the New
York-based Society for the Right to Die, observes: "courts seem to have a problem
understanding the choice of someone who does not have a terminal illness and does
not want to live on life support"15
Gasner concludes that the Nevada decision may have been affected by past cases like
that of Larry McAfee, a competent, non-terminal quadriplegic who, after winning the
right to discontinue ventilator treatment, opted to live when offered a more pleasant
and productive alternative to his existing lifestyle. The McAfee case showed that
"patients may not know everything that is available [and that ] ...not enough effort [has
been made] to provide rehabilitation services." The intent of this additional state
interest is to ensure that competent, disabled people have knowledge of all the
services and support that are available. In this way, the right to die would only be
entertained after a close scrutiny of all the alternatives.
MD0067
2-26
Previous Page
