Legal Opinion

Guardianship of Doe

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 6, 1992PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAbrams, J.

We are asked to decide whether a judge correctly determined that a profoundly retarded woman in a persistent vegetative state would choose, were she competent, to terminate her nasoduodenal feeding and hydration. After hearing, the judge made careful, detailed written findings and concluded that the woman, Jane Doe (a pseudonym), would choose to do so. Doe’s parents agree with the judge’s determination. Doe’s permanent guardian (guardian), the guardian ad litem (GAL), and Doe’s physicians agree with the judge’s determination.1 The Department of Mental Retardation (department), the agency…

2Cases cited46 opinions

  1. Santosky v. KramerSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Woodby v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of HealthSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  5. In Re QuinlanSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1976

41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Vacco v. QuillSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  2. Vacco v. QuillSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  3. People v. KevorkianMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Mack v. MackCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
  5. Woods Ex Rel. Simpson v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2004

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API