CancerTreatmentBooks.com
Information About Cancer and Cancer Treatment

US constitutional right to medical treatment

In the US constitution, the right to medical treatment is a liberty
protected under substantive due process. Originally, this liberty was
declared fundamental because of the importance of the right to bodily
integrity. Today, the right has evolved into the liberty aspects of privacy
and personal autonomy. However, it is important to remember that this is not
an absolute right and must be weighed against the governmental interests.
Under this liberty there are two main rights: the right to choose certain
medical treatment and the right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition.

First, the right to choose certain medical treatment was decided by one the
most famous U.S. cases, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). In Roe, the Court
concluded that even if a fetus is viable, a woman has the right to choose an
abortion if the medical procedure is necessary to protect her health. There
are two important holdings in Roe. A womanÕs right to choose an abortion and
a womanÕs right to make choices concerning her health. Following the holding
in Roe, courts have inferred the broader privacy right of individuals to
make choices regarding their health.

Second, the right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition was raised in
the controversial case Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health,
497 U.S. 261 (1990). Here, the court addressed the parents request to remove
their daughter from artificial food and hydration procedures. The Missouri
Supreme court recognized prior decisions to refuse medical treatment,
however, this case hinged on the fact that the daughter was in a vegetative
state, therefore, not competent. The court refused the parentÕs request
because the patient was not competent, there was no clear and convincing
evidence that the decision would be consistent with to the patientÕs wishes
while competent and there was no execution of a living will. The right to
refuse medical treatment belongs to the individual not the personÕs family
or friends. Since the right did not belong to the parents and the patient
was not competent to express her wishes the states interest in preserving
life was more compelling. Therefore, the patient remained on the lifesaving
hydration and nutrition.

In conclusion, the right to medical treatment is a fundamental right
protected under substantive due process. However, as seen from above the
fundamental right is very fact sensitive and not absolute. In addition, this
subject is extremely controversial and discussed in many facets of U.S.
culture, such as religion, philosophers and medicine. The right to medical
treatment is asserted by some to be an essential fundamental right to make
decisions about oneÕs own body.

The fact remains, however, that United States Constitution says absolutely
nothing about medical treatment. The "right to make decisions about one's
own body" and the "right to medical treatment" are inferred by court
decisions. Because a hypothetical "right to medical treatment" is a positive
right -- it requires people other than the beneficiary to perform actions
they might not choose to make if they were not coerced by the government --
many people believe that it is a privilege, not a "right."

Cancer - List of Famous Cancer Patients - Medical Topics - Medical_Terms - Medicine - Alternative Therapies -