| Case | Year | Courts involved and case citations | Applicable State Law(s) | Pertinent Facts | Legal Significance |
| In re Quinlan | 1976 | New Jersey Supreme Court 355 A.2d 647(NJ, 1976) | | -Pt in PVS on ventilator-Pt being fed enterally | Pt has a right to stop artificial life support (does not address ANH) |
| Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health | 1990 | United States Supreme Court 497 U.S. 261 (1990) | Mo. Rev. Stat § 459.011 (1986) | -Pt in PVS for 5 years -Pt being fed enterally-Family wanted to stop enteral nutrition-After USSC decision, to meet high evidentiary standard, family presented witnesses who testified to pt’s previously expressed desire NOT to have life sustained by artificial means. | -ANH is medical treatment-Competent individuals have a Constitutionally protected right to refuse life sustaining ANH-Individual states have the right to require “clear and convincing evidence” of a person’s desire to refuse ANH |
| Gilmore v. Finn | 2000 | Virginia Supreme Court 527 S.E.2d 462 (Va. 2000) | VA Code 54.1-2981 et seq. | -Pt in PVS-Pt being fed enterally-Wife as guardian wanted to stop enteral feeding-Other family members and Governor of Virginia opposed wife | -Withdrawal of ANH does not initiate the dying process but permits the already occurring natural process of dying |
| Wendland v. Wendland | 2001 | California Supreme Court 110 Cal. Rptr.2d 412 (Cal. 2001) | Cal. Prob. Code § 2355 | -Incompetent patient-NOT terminally ill, comatose, or PVS-No applicable advance directive | -Court appointed conservator required-Conservator may NOT withhold ANH without clear and convincing evidencethat the decision is in the patient’s best interests |
| Woods v. Kentucky | 2004 | Supreme Court of Kentucky 142 S.W.3d 24 (Kentucky, 2004) | K.R.S. § 311.631 | -Pt ward of state-Low IQ; adjudicated incompetent prior to hospitalization-Cardiopulmonary arrest after asthma attack; was resuscitated-Doctors testified he was “permanently unconscious” but not in a PVS | -Withdrawal of artificial life support prohibited absentclear and convincing evidencethat the patient is permanently unconscious or in a PVS and that withdrawal is in the patient’s best interests |
| Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo | 2001 - 2005 | U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal Numerous opinions | Fl Stat | -Pt in PVS for x years-Husband asserted right to stop life support, including ANH-No advance directive-Pt’s parents opposed husband’s decision-Governor opposed cessation of life support-Case widely publicized in media | -Federal appeals court refused to grant a temporary order that would have required hospital to re-start ANH |
| Ussery v. Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta | 2008 | Court of Appeals of Georgia | Ga law | -34 month old child-anoxic encephalopathy after problematic intubation-parents consented in writing to cessation of nutrition support-later, parents claimed consent was invalid | -Withdrawing nutrition support did NOT constitute an intentional tort under Georgia law |