See WiklerD., “Not Dead, Not Dying? Ethical Categories and Persistent Vegetative State,”Hastings Center Report, February/March 1988, at 41.
2.
See CranfordR., “The Persistent Vegetative State: The Medical Reality (Getting the Facts Straight),”Hasting Center Report, February/March 1988, at 27, and CranfordR.SmithH., “Some Critical Distinctions Between Brain Death and Persistent Vegetative State,”6 Ethics in Science and Medicine199 (1979).
3.
CranfordR.SmithD., “Consciousness: The Most Critical Moral (Constitutional) Standard For Human Personhood,”13Am. J. L. & M.233, 236 (1987).
4.
“Right to Die: The Public's View,”The New York Times, June 26, 1990, section A, p. 18, Col. 2.
5.
See Council on Scientific Affairs and Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, “Persistent Vegetative State and the Decision to Withdraw or Withhold Life Support,”263J.A.M.A.426 (1990).
6.
See, for example, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, “Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act” (1989).
7.
Comm. v. David & Ginger Twitchell, Docket Nos. 069517 and 069757, (Superior Ct., Suffolk County Mass., May 1990).
8.
Compare Matter of Westchester County Medical Center [O'Connor], 531 N.E.2d 607 (N.Y. 1988), with Elbaum v. Grace Plaza, 148 A.D.2d 244 (N.Y. 1989).
9.
See In Re Gardner, 534 A.2d 947 (Me. 1987) and In Re Swan, 569 A.2d 1202 (Me. 1990).
10.
Compare In Re Conroy, 486 A.2d 1209 (N.J. 1985) with In Re Peter, 529 A.2d 419 (N.J. 1987) and In Re Jobes, 529 A.2d 434 (N.J. 1987). In the last-cited case, the New Jersey Supreme Court candidly observes: “Because of the unique problems involved in decision making for any patient in the persistent vegetative state, we necessarily distinguish their cases from cases involving other patients. Accordingly, in Peter we held that neither the life expectancy test nor the balancing tests set forth in Conroy are appropriate in the case of a persistently vegetative patient.” 529 A.2d 434, at 443
