Question

CASE: SPOUSAL RIGHTS IN DECISION MAKING Mr. Martin sustained debilitating injuries as the result of an automobile accident. He suffered severe subcortical brain damage, significantly impairing his physical and cognitive function- ing.45 His injuries left him totally paralyzed on the left side. He could not speak or eat and had no bladder or bowel control. Martin remained conscious and had some awareness of his surroundings. He could communicate to a very minimal degree through head nods. The trial court determined that Martin did not have nor would he ever have the ability to have the requisite capacity to make decisions regarding the withdrawal of life-support equipment. The evidence demonstrated that Martin's preference would have been to decline life-support equipment given his medical condition and prognosis. The trial court's decision

Please do not hand write ***

Answer 1

1. ANS: Four part test that can determine as follows:

Initially conduct a test to determine that whether Person M has sufficient awareness to understand his current situation. Then conduct the second test to determine that whether Person M is capable to understand the treatment choices available to him and their possible impacts. Determine that whether Person M is aware of the consequences that would result due to each treatment choice. Finally determine that whether Person M has the ability to make a voluntary informed choice.

Although Person M had some ability to interact with the environment however the above tests are crucial to determine his decision making ability. These tests would help to assess the cognitive condition of Person M.

2. ANS: According to the given situation in the mentioned case, the court has supported Mrs M's decision to withdraw the Life support system of her husband. The decision was taken because Mr M was totally paralyzed on his left side due to an automobile accident. He had a minimum degree of communication capacity using head nods. The court has taken the decision alter complete assurance with the help of following evidences:

Evidence 1: Four-pad test was done to assure that Person M is incompetent for taking the decision about his treatment choices.

Evidence 2: Testimony from Mr M friends was taken regarding his earlier view about his current situation.

3. ANS: The mother and sister of Person M counter-petitioned to remove the guardianship of Mrs M. Concern of Mr M's mother and sister does not carry more weight in removing the custody of Mrs M due to the following reasons.

Testimony provided by Mrs. M was credible. The facts provided by her along wall the close friends of person M proved that Person M would never want to be maintained in a paralyzed state

Absence of any evidence that could show that Mrs M has some personal or financial gain from the death of Person M also increases her credibility.

Furthermore, no evidence was present that can show that Mrs. M's decision was influenced by other individuals.

The above evidences support the fact that Mrs .M does not have any personal interest in withdrawing the support system of her husband. Her act was purely based on best interest towards her husband. Hence, the concern of M's mother and sister does not carry sufficient weightage.

Please remind this: Answering to many questions is against to HOMEWORKLIB RULESS. Thank you.