Correspondence

The Wendland Case

N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1119October 3, 2002

Article

To the Editor:

The commentary by Lo et al. (May 9 issue)1 demonstrates concern about the impact of the California Supreme Court's decision in the Wendland case2 and provides some welcome advice for physicians with regard to their responses to that decision.

The decision itself acknowledged its very limited application, including the application only to court-appointed conservators. It is ironic that if Robert Wendland's wife had not allowed herself to be made a legal conservator, she would have remained the common-law surrogate, and Mr. Wendland's physician could have removed the tube feedings at her request on the basis of the patient's best interest or the legal standard of a preponderance of evidence as proof of the patient's wishes, or both.

Would not justice be better served if, through the court or legislative action, a wife appointed as a conservator were given as much authority as a wife not appointed as a conservator?

Maurice Bernstein, M.D.
University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA 90033
doktormo@aol.com

2 References

1. 1

   Lo B, Dornbrand L, Wolf LE, Groman M. The Wendland case -- withdrawing life support from incompetent patients who are not terminally ill. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1489-1493
   Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

2. 2

   Conservatorship of Wendland, 26 Calif. 4th 519, 28 P.3d 151, 110 Calif. Rptr. 2d 412 (2001).