By Chris Valley

A Georgia man terminally ill with Lou Gehrig’s Disease asks to have his ventilator (life support system) disconnected.

A California woman who is a quadriplegic asks to be allowed to starve herself to death while she remains a hospital patient.

Atlanta Constitution and Atlanta Journal editorial writers and columnists argue that these cases demonstrate the need for “living will” legislation in Georgia. But do they?

According to two pro-life activists, the cases which have received so much recent publicity do not fall into the domain of “living will” legislation at all. They argue further that proposed legislation to provide “living wills” is unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

“The living will legislation is not necessary. We have sufficient legislation to address these matters now," maintains Sheila Mallon, archdiocesan pro-life coordinator. “The Georgia Medical Consent Law explicitly states that patients may refuse any medical treatment.”

Georgia Code 88-2907 states: “Nothing contained herein shall be construed to abridge any right of a person 18 years of age or over to refuse to consent to medical or surgical treatment as to his own person.”

“If a person is incompetent,” Mrs. Mallon explains, “then their family and physicians can petition the court to allow them to be removed (from life support systems).”

In the case of the Georgia man, Mr. Ernest M. Young of Palmetto, Emory University Hospital refused to honor the patient’s expressed desire that his ventilator be disconnected, according to reports in the Atlanta Constitution. He and his family were required to obtain a court order to do so. A DeKalb County Superior Court Judge was brought to the man’s bedside where he again expressed his desire for the ventilator to be disconnected. The judge then signed an order to stop treatment and the physicians complied.

“A living will would not have made any difference in this case,” says Mrs. Mallon. “Mr. Young was fully competent to make his own decision. The “living will” is for those instances when the person is not competent or cannot communicate his wishes. I cannot understand why his physicians refused to honor his wishes.”

Atlanta Constitution reports at the time stated that “the threat of a possible legal tangle led (the physicians) to refuse his request.”

Kel Macdonald, Georgia director of the National Right-to-Life Committee, is likewise puzzled. “There has never been a case in the United States where a doctor was held liable for disconnecting treatment of a patient in a terminal condition,” he notes. “Any adult can refuse treatment. All the person must do is convey their wishes to their doctor.”

In the case of the California quadriplegic Elizabeth Bouvia, who requested to be allowed to starve herself to death in Riverside General Hospital, there is no terminal illness involved. She seeks to compel the hospital to allow her to starve to death while at the same time providing her with medication to relieve pain. Mrs. Bouvia voluntarily entered the hospital in September. Her attorneys have sought a court injunction to stop the hospital from discharging her.

The confusion linking the Bouvia case with living will legislation points to an underlying issue, according to Mrs. Mallon. “The great problem with living will legislation is that society would be closer to moving from the ‘right to die’ to making sure that certain people die. Society would be closer to saying that somehow it is more humane to put certain people away, such as the aged or the handicapped.”

“What we need to do,” explains Mr. Macdonald,” is educate people to the fact that a living will is not required (in order to cease extraordinary life support treatment). People need to talk frankly with their physicians about their wishes.”

Mrs. Mallon concurs. “A living will in effect gives carte blanche in the future, to any physician who is called in to withhold treatment. It locks in a decision years in advance.”

Mr. Macdonald fears that unintended future problems may arise from living will legislation. “If this type of legislation becomes prevalent, doctors treating those who do not have a living will might be legally required to maintain life support systems indefinitely in the absence of explicit orders not to.

“Anytime you write legislation there should be a need for it. There is no need for living will legislation,” Mrs. Macdonald continues. “The last thing we need to do is bring the courts into what is now a medical decision.”

A “Living Will” bill, Senate Bill 186, was introduced in the General Assembly last year by Sen. Richard Greene of Macon and has been referred to the Judiciary and Constitutional Law Committee of the Senate. The two-year session of the General Assembly, which began in 1983, resumed Jan. 9.