By Liz Townsend
Robert Wendland, severely disabled since
a 1993 car accident, will not be starved to death, a California judge has
ruled. The case pitted Wendland's wife, who had asked the court to allow
his feeding tube to be removed, against his mother and sister, who insisted
he was conscious, responsive, and did not deserve to die.
"What has happened here is the prevention of a slow, grueling, and
potentially excruciatingly painful death for a person who is conscious and
can experience pain," Janie Hickok Siess, the attorney opposing Mrs.
Wendland's starvation request, told the Sacramento Bee. Robert Wendland
cannot walk or speak, but he is aware of his environment, breathes on his
own, and has communicated nonverbally with other people.
The case is one of several recent court battles in which others have argued
that patients who were severely disabled, though conscious and responsive,
would be "better off dead" and have sought to withdraw basic care
from them. "These cases represent the effort to expand the range of
people with disabilities who could have treatment and care withdrawn, including
food and fluids," said Thomas J. Marzen, general counsel of the National
Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled. "So far, that
effort has failed, but proponents are nothing if not determined."
Indeed, Wendland's safety may still be in jeopardy. In February, the same
judge who refused to order his death last December allowed Wendland's wife
to continue making decisions for him, even though she has insisted it is
in his best interests to die.
Dana Cody of the Life Legal Defense Foundation, which is providing financial
help to those seeking to save Wendland's life, told NRL News that
he is not now receiving any significant physical therapy. Absent therapy,
his chances of catching pneumonia or developing other complications are
greatly enhanced.
Wendland went into a coma following a car accident in September 1993. He
awoke from the coma 16 months later, partially paralyzed but responsive,
according to syndicated columnist Wesley J. Smith.
He now breathes on his own, but needs a nasogastric feeding tube to provide
nutrition and hydration. In July 1995, Wendland's wife Rose asked the hospital
to remove his feeding tube, saying that Wendland told her he would not want
to live if he couldn't "be a husband, father or a provider," Smith
reported.
His doctors and an ethics committee at Lodi Memorial Hospital West, where
he remains in residence, refused to remove his feeding tube. Wendland was
scheduled to be transferred to a convalescent home where his tube would
be removed, according to the Sacramento Bee. Wendland's mother, Florence,
and his sister, Rebekah Vinson, strongly objected to Rose Wendland's starvation
request and obtained a temporary restraining order to force the case into
the courts before any action was taken to cause his death.
They insist Wendland can drive his electric wheelchair by himself, propel
a manual wheelchair with his unparalyzed side, write some letters of his
name, and answer yes or no questions using buttons, according to Smith's
column. When he was asked, "Is your name Robert?" he answered
yes; to "Is your name Michael?" he answered no. Doctors asked
if he wanted to die, but he did not answer, Smith reported.
The case went to trial before Superior Court Judge Bob McNatt in October
1997 and lasted until December 9, when the judge dismissed the case. Judge
McNatt concluded that he found "no basis in California law to terminate
treatment for a person in Wendland's medical condition," the Bee
reported. "If I have to choose life and death based on the evidence
presented to me, I must err on the side of caution and choose life,"
McNatt said in court, according to the Associated Press.
Only Rose Wendland's lawyers and a public defender, assigned to protect
Robert's interests but who agreed that he should die, presented their sides
before the case was dismissed. McNatt is expected to issue a written decision
in the case within the next few weeks.
After that, Rose Wendland's lawyers told the Bee they would decide
whether to appeal to the California 3rd District Court of Appeals. Life
Legal Defense Foundation's Cody said the opposing side would certainly cross-appeal
and continue to fight to save Robert Wendland's life.
"It is an incredible indication of how dominant prejudice against
people with disabilities has become in our society that courts could even
seriously consider the starvation of a conscious person with no terminal
illness - - because the person has a disability," said Burke Balch,
director of NRLC's Department of Medical Ethics. "As the Wendland case
shows, with America's acceptance of the 'quality of life' ethic, once you
put a price on human life, the price goes down."