title: In re Edna MF: case law confusion in surrogate decision making.
abstract: I review the recent case of Edna Folz, a 73 year-old woman who was suffering through the end stages of very advanced Alzheimer's dementia when her case was adjudicated by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I consider this case as an example of how courts are increasingly misinterpreting the ethical and legal decision-making-standards known as "substituted judgment" and "best interests" and thereby threatening individuals' treatment decision-making rights as developed by other courts over the past two decades and creating serious roadblocks to health-care providers' ability to render appropriate patient care. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Edna's legal guardian could not authorize withdrawal of Edna's treatment, ruling that as a matter of law, if an incompetent person is not in a persistent vegetative state, it is not in his or her best interests for life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn unless (s)he has executed an advance directive or other statement clearly indicating his or her desires.
authors.affiliation: Center for the Study of Bioethics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 53226-0509, USA.
authors.forename: R S
authors.initials: RS
authors.lastname: Shapiro
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000544:Alzheimer Disease; D002961:Civil Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D033222:Judicial Role; D007872:Legal Guardians / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008020:Life Support Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D018458:Persistent Vegetative State; D012297:Right to Die; D018570:Risk Assessment; D014481:United States; D014922:Wisconsin; D028761:Withholding Treatment