Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Civil Law

PDF

Seattle University School of Law

Seattle University Law Review

1989

Articles 1 - 1 of 1

Full-Text Articles in Law

In Re Grant: Where Does Washington Stand On Artificial Nutrition And Hydration?, Stephen P. Vanderhoef Jan 1989

In Re Grant: Where Does Washington Stand On Artificial Nutrition And Hydration?, Stephen P. Vanderhoef

Seattle University Law Review

The Washington Supreme Court in In re Grantsought to determine whether life sustaining treatment could be legally withheld from a terminally ill, non-comatose, incompetent individual. In its December 1987 slip opinion, a majority of the court expanded on its previous decisions empowering third parties, including guardians, families, and physicians, to withhold and withdraw life sustaining treatment from incompetent individuals. This was accomplished by characterizing artificial nutrition and hydration as removable, life sustaining medical treatment. The court also gave third parties the power to remove artificial nutrition and hydration before the incompetent individual in question slips into a coma or …