Call To See How I Can Help You 781-433-8665


How well do the courts honor the wishes of incapacitated persons?

Posted by Sasha Golden | Jan 23, 2012 | 0 Comments

There was a terrific article in yesterday's Boston Globe (warning – pay wall unless you're a Boston Globe subscriber) concerning to what extent the wishes of legally incapacitated persons concerning extraordinary medical treatment are actually honored. Extraordinary medical treatment includes such matters as end-of-life decisions, use of antipsychotic medication,sterilization and abortion, and so forth.

This issue has been of great interest to me since law school. Massachusetts is one of the few states where such decisions are left in the hands of judges, who must decide whether the treatment is something that the incapacitated person would want if competent — in most states, the decision may be left to the guardian, who decides whether the treatment is in the incapacitated person's best interest. One of the first Massachusetts cases on point is the Saikewicz matter. This case from the early 1970's involved a profoundly developmentally disabled 67 year old man who suffered from leukemia. The argument over whether he should receive chemotherapy which, at best, would only briefly extend his life at the cost of considerable side effects. The trial judge, after weighing the pluses and minuses (including the extent to which side effects can be managed, the low rate of remission, the patient's inability to cooperate with treatment, and the anticipated likelihood of death without treatment), determined that treatment should be withheld because it would not be in Mr. Saikewicz's best interest.

The Supreme Judicial Court took a different tack. While adopting the factual findings of the trial judge,  the SJC looked at Mr. Saikewicz's right to privacy balanced against the state interest in preserving life given the facts.

“The interest of the State in prolonging a life must be reconciled with the interest of an individual to reject the traumatic cost of that prolongation. There is a substantial distinction in the State's insistence that human life be saved where the affliction is curable, as opposed to the State interest where, as here, the issue is not whether, but when, for how long, and at what cost to the individual that life may be briefly extended. Even if we assume that the State has an additional interest in seeing to it that individual decisions on the prolongation of life do not in any way tend to “cheapen” the value which is placed in the concept of living, see Roe v. Wade, supra, we believe it is not inconsistent to recognize a right to decline medical treatment in a situation of incurable illness. The constitutional right to privacy, as we conceive it, is an expression of the sanctity of individual free choice and self-determination as fundamental constituents of life. The value of life as so perceived is lessened not by a decision to refuse treatment, but by the failure to allow a competent human being the right of choice.”

Over time, this doctrine was extended past end-of-life decision-making to other types of medical treatment. The role of the guardian in Massachusetts is to carry out the medical wishes of the incapacitated person to the extent they are known; and after that do one's best to infer what they might be. For certain types of treatment, a judge must weigh in.

Next Post — the present problem with ensuring the substituted judgment standard is used.

About the Author

Sasha Golden

Alexandra “Sasha” Golden received her undergraduate and law degrees from Boston College, and has been practicing law in Massachusetts since 1994. Attorney Golden is a long-standing member of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA) and of the Probate and So...


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Golden Law Center Today

Golden Law Center is committed to answering your questions about elder law and estate planning issues in Massachusettes.

I'll gladly discuss your case with you at your convenience. Contact us today to schedule an appointment.

Golden Law Center
(781) 465-6078 (fax)
Mon: 09:00am - 05:00pm
Tue: 09:00am - 05:00pm
Wed: 09:00am - 05:00pm
Thu: 09:00am - 05:00pm
Fri: 09:00am - 02:00pm

Disclaimer: The materials appearing on this website are provided for informational use only and are in no way intended to constitute legal advice or the opinions of this law firm or any of its attorneys. You should never hire an attorney without first meeting with the lawyer, reviewing her qualifications, and carefully reading the fee agreement. The use of the material on this website does not create an attorney-client relationship, and you should not rely upon the information provided here without seeking the advice of an attorney. We also cannot guarantee that the materials appearing on this website are not guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date since the law is always changing.

This website must be labeled “advertising” according to the rules of professional responsibility established by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. This website may not meet the applicable laws or ethical rules in other states. Golden Law Center does not wish to represent persons living in those states who seek our representation as a result of viewing this website.

Links that may appear on this site are intended to provide additional sources of information and are not to be construed as being endorsements by the Golden Law Center or indications of affiliation. We do not imply that we are legally authorized to use any trade name, registered trademark, symbol, logo, or seal that may be reflected in any of these links.