Brophy v New England Sinai Hospital, Inc.

On September 11, 1986, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in a 4–3 decision, authorized removal of the artificial feeding tube. It held that the “substituted judgment” of an incompetent person in a persistent vegetative state to refuse artificially administered sustenance must be honored. The Court also refused to compel the hospital in this case to terminate the treatment, but permitted other hospitals to comply with the patient's wishes. We are publishing the amicus curiae brief filed by the Society for the Right to Die, Inc. in the Brophy case. Our purpose in doing this is to stimulate further discussion of the issue of the role of the patients who become incompetent, a matter of major concern to geriatric specialists. This brief has been well‐prepared. It contains a legal and ethical history of considerable merit. It has not, however, been endorsed by the American Geriatrics Society (AGS). Some of the principles the AGS has endorsed can be found on its own brief filed in the Conroy case (published in the December 1984 issue of the Journal). Physicians and medical ethicists in particular may wish to consider the caveats noted by David Thomasma, PhD. in his editorial in this issue of the Journal. We invite further discussion.