Conservatorship of Wendland
Supreme Court of California
28 P.3d 151 (2001)
After a truck accident left Robert Wendland severely disabled and dependent on a feeding tube, his wife and conservator Rose (defendant) sought to remove it based on his pre-accident statements that he would not want to live in a vegetative state or unable to enjoy normal activities, a decision supported by his treating physicians and a hospital ethics committee; Robert's mother and sister (plaintiffs) opposed removal. The trial court found Rose failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Robert would have wanted to die under these specific circumstances, and the court of appeals reversed, holding the trial court should have deferred to the conservator's good-faith decision.
Whether a conservator may withhold artificial nutrition and hydration from a conscious conservatee who is not terminally ill, comatose, or in a persistent vegetative state, and who has not left formal instructions for such a situation, absent clear and convincing evidence the conservator's decision is in accordance with either the conservatee's own wishes or best interests.