A. Liberty Interests

The United States Supreme Court has determined that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest to refuse medical treatment. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 110 S. Ct. 2841, 111 L.Ed. 2d 224 (1990). The court concluded that the U.S. Constitution would grant a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse life saving medical treatment including nutrition and hydration.

B. Privacy

The right to refuse medical treatment may also be based on the fundamental right of privacy found in the state constitutions. For examples see: In Re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990); and In Re Crabtree, No.86-0031 (HA Fam. Ct., April 26, 1990). However the right to privacy may be outweighed by other competing interests.

A Pennsylvania court held that the state had the right to force a competent prisoner within the state's penal system to receive involuntary medical treatment and nutrition and hydration through a nasogastric feeding tube (see Commonwealth v. Kallinger, No. 239 Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, August 14, 1990). This court held that the state's interests in "prison security and discipline, the moral of medical and custodial staff, as well as the law of the state far outweigh any right of privacy that a prisoner may have."