Bouvia v. County of Riverside

The plaintiff, a quadriplegic with cerebral palsy, had admitted herself voluntarily to the psychiatric department of Riverside General Hospital in September 1983. She then revealed her intention of starving herself to death, requested that hospital personnel administer only pain medication and hygienic care, and sought preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent the hospital from either force feeding, transferring, or discharging her. The essence of her legal claim was that society was obliged to honor, and to assist her in carrying out, her privacy right to end her life. While the Superior Court recognized a patient's right to refuse life-sustaining care under some circumstances, it ruled that because Bouvia's condition was not terminal, her rights must yield to the interests of the state and other third parties in preserving life.     

Rogers v. Whitaker

The High Court of Australia affirmed the Supreme Court of New South Wales' determination that a doctor has a duty to warn a patient of any material risk involved in a proposed treatment. A risk is considered material if a reasonable person in similar circumstances would attach significance to the risk, or if the doctor is, or should be, cognizant that the particular patient would express concern about the risk. The trial court overruled the precept that a doctor could not be found negligent in warning a patient if the doctor acted within the purview of common practice, even though other practitioners may follow different procedures and regardless of the particular patient's concerns. In this case, Maree Whitaker became essentially blind after an unsucessful operation on her right eye caused sympathetic ophthalmia in her left eye. Although there was no question that the surgery had been performed with the requisite skill and care, Ms. Whitaker petitioned the court for relief due to the failure of the ophthalmologist, Dr. Christopher Rogers, to warn her of the possibility (approximately 1 in 14,000) that the sympathetic ophthalmia condition could develop. The trial court's award of damages was affirmed because, in spite of Ms. Whitaker's expressed specific concern that her "good eye" not be harmed, Dr. Rogers did not inform her of the potential risks associated with the surgery.     

TROXEL v. GRANVILLE

The author opines that litigating visitation disputes between parents and third parties is advisable only under limited circumstances, and that the emotional benefits to children that are derived from their interactions with members of their extended family are only realized when the relationships between the extended and the nuclear family are satisfactory.