O'Callaghan observes that the absence of an objective standard guiding the judgment of physicians or the review committee means that TADA immunizes all denials of LSMT under its review process, whether they are entirely arbitrary, negligent, reckless, or made with malice and the intent of harming or killing the patient.
Professor O'Callaghan distinguishes the LSMT at issue in futility cases as it is proven to sustain life.
Moreover, she anticipates that the TADA Process would also fail substantive due process review because the law is not narrowly tailored to ensure that only patients whose dependence on LSMT implicates such state interests are denied treatment.
In cases brought for failure to provide LSMT consistent with patient or proxy wishes, the patient is typically severely disabled and very close to death.
Her attending physician felt that continued LSMT was futile and inappropriate.
Francis Medical Center, the family of a 31-year-old comatose, quadriplegic patient in end-stage renal failure sued the hospital and the patient's physician for intentional battery after the physician withdrew the patient's LSMT against the family's wishes.
Accordingly, withdrawal of LSMT merely allowed a natural dying process to occur while administration of a lethal substance precipitated death by unnatural means and constituted unlawful killing.
34) According to this version, in the context of LSMT the cooperating physician's "intent is not to bring about the patient's death but to respect the patient's wishes not to be subjected to undesired treatment.
Though some fatally stricken patients reject LSMT simply in order to avoid a burdensome medical intervention (e.
, including the state's parens patriae duty).
Third, the Statute invidiously discriminates against those dependent on LSMT in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Part II explains two ways in which a patient subjected to the Statute at a private hospital could challenge the denial of LSMT.