Twice during oral arguments in an emotional right-to-die case involving a man who has been in a state of semiconsciousness for much of the last 6 1/2 years, California appeals court Justice Richard Sims raised a simple, yet difficult question. Why shouldn't someone have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that their decision to terminate life support for someone else was made in good faith and based on sound medical advice? As he discovered, there are no easy answers.
February 18, 2000 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
Twice during oral arguments Wednesday in an emotional right-to-die case, Justice Richard Sims of California’s 3rd District Court of Appeals raised a simple, yet difficult question.
Why shouldn’t someone have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that their decision to terminate life support for someone else who can no longer speak for himself was made in good faith and based on sound medical advice?
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
