Supreme Court's Right-To-Die Rulings Are Few

The Supreme Court's history on right-to-die cases is pretty thin.

It ruled in 1990 that a terminally ill person has a right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. And next term it plans to consider whether the federal government can prosecute doctors who help ill patients die.

Between those cases, the court has not said much, choosing to allow states to decide the issue.
Terri Schiavo's case offers a number of legal questions for the court to consider if, as expected, it reaches the justices. Among them is whether she actually requested that artificial means not be used to keep her alive and whether state or federal courts should be the venue to determine her fate.

The parents of Schiavo, who is brain-damaged, asked federal courts to reinsert her feeding tube over the wishes of Schiavo's husband, Michael, who says she would not want to be kept alive in her condition.

The Supreme Court ruled 15 years ago that a terminally ill patient has a constitutional right to decline medical treatment. But it also said that right was not absolute, holding that a state may impose a high legal burden on a family to show a patient had actually consented.
She did not leave a "living will" indicating her wishes. Her parents also say Michael Schiavo has a conflict of interest as his wife's legal guardian because he has a longtime girlfriend, with whom he has children.
"One big worry is that, obviously, she's not brain dead. But is she really in a 'persistent vegetative state'? If she isn't, no one should be deciding to cut her off," said Martha Field, a Harvard law professor. "We're also in a place where it's important to draw the line in consent because, realistically, it isn't Terri's choice, it's her husband's choice."
The Supreme Court has not always deferred automatically to states on the delicate question of life and death