American Journal of Law & Medicine

Evidence: clear and convincing evidence required to withdraw life sustaining treatment in impaired but conscious patient - Wendland v. Wendland.

Evidence: Clear and Convincing Evidence Required to Withdraw Life Sustaining Treatment in Impaired but Conscious Patient--Wendland v. Wendland (1) --The Supreme Court of California held that "a conservator may not withhold artificial nutrition and hydration from [a conscious conservatee] ... absent clear and convincing evidence [that] the conservator's decision is in accordance with either the conservatee's own wishes or best interest." (2) The appellant and conservator, Rose Wendland, sought permission to withhold artificial nutrition and hydration from her husband, Robert Wendland. She argued that California Probate Code section 2355 (3) gave her broad rights as conservator to make medical decisions for her incompetent yet conscious husband, even though his condition was not one of the traditional bases for withholding artificial nutrition and hydration as previously recognized under California law. (4) The objectors, Robert's mother and sister, disputed appellant's claim that Robert had informally expressed his wish to refuse life-sustaining treatment. …

Log in to your account to read this article – and millions more.