Wendland v. Wendland
No. S087265 (Cal. Aug. 9, 2001)

The mother and sister of an incompetent man petitioned the California courts seeking to override the decision of the man’s conservator (his wife) to withdraw life-sustaining nutrition and hydration.

The Supreme Court of California interpreted the state Health-Care Decisions Law as not permitting termination of nutrition and hydration in these circumstances. That law states that a conservator must make treatment decisions in accordance with the conservatee’s individual health care instructions and other wishes, to the extent known to the conservator. If the conservatee did not express his or her desires, the law directs the conservator to make treatment decisions “in accordance with the conservator’s determination of the conservatee’s best interest…consider[ing] the conservatee’s personal values to the extent known to the conservator.”

The court concluded that the conservator had failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the conservatee had instructed that he would desire termination of life-sustaining treatments in situations such as this. According to the court, two conversations wherein the conservatee expressed a desire to not be allowed to live as a “vegetable” were insufficient to meet the standard.

Most surprisingly, the court concluded that the clear and convincing standard applied to the “best interest” standard as well. Despite the clear language of the statute, which indicates that the conservator is to make treatment decisions based upon “the conservator’s determination of the conservatee’s best interest,” the court required the conservator to prove through clear and convincing evidence that withholding treatment would be in the conservatee’s best interests.