| Statutory Citations | Illinois |
Illinois Living Will Act [1984, 1988, 1997], Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. ch. 755, §§35/1 to 35/10
Illinois Powers of Attorney for Health Care Act [1987, 1988, 2000], Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. ch. 755, §§45/4-1 to 45/4-12
Illinois Health Care Surrogate Act [1994, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001], Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. ch. 755, §§40/1 to 40/65
Documents
Free advance directive documents and instructions from Partnership for Caring.
| Court Cases |
Illinois |
| Case | In re Estate of Longeway, 133 Ill. 2d 33, 549 N.E.2d 292 (1989). |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Year | 1989 |
| Patient (age) | Dorothy Longeway (76) |
| Nutrition + hydration | Gastrostomy |
| Mental capacity | Unconscious (following a series of strokes) |
| Decision maker(s) | Daughter |
| Setting | Illinois nursing home |
| Patient's Wishes | Mrs. Longeway's daughter testified that while she was competent, Mrs. Longeway expressed that she did not wish to be kept alive on machines and that she would prefer to die naturally rather than linger. |
| Court's Decision | Guardians of incompetent patients who are seriously ill may exercise the right to refuse artificially provided nutrition and hydration on their behalf. The right itself is grounded in common law. The power of a guardian to make a decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment may only be exercised in cases where the patient is terminally ill and irreversibly comatose or in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). Although actual, specifically expressed intent of the patient would be "helpful and compelling," it is not required so long as the guardian uses the patient's personal value system as a guide. |
| Outcome | |
| Citation | Partnership for Caring, Inc. (2001), Fact Sheet, In re Estate of Longeway |
 |
 |
 |
| Case | In re Greenspan, 137 Ill. 2d 1, 558 N.E.2d 1194, remanded, No. 88P8726 (Cir. Ct. Cook Co. Oct. 3, 1990) (Dowdle, J. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Year | 1990 |
| Patient (age) | Sidney Greenspan (67) |
| Nutrition + hydration | Nasogastric tube |
| Mental capacity | Permanently and irreversibly unconscious (following a stroke); a chronic vegetative state with no hope of recovery |
| Decision maker(s) | Public guardian |
| Setting | |
| Patient's Wishes | Greenspan's wife and children all testified to conversations Greenspan had with them about not wanting to be sustained on life support or reside in a nursing home. Mr. Greenspan's former rabbi testified to the same effect. |
| Court's Decision |
The court ruled that when patients are not able to chew or swallow as a result of an incurable illness, that the illness is the cause of death if tube feeding is withheld or withdrawn. It also ruled that tube feeding may be withdrawn just as any other medical treatment may when an incompetent patient's guardian demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment is a choice the patient would make for him- or herself, if able. This "substituted judgment" must be "based on clear and convincing evidence of the patient's intent, derived either from a patient's explicit expressions of intent or from knowledge of the patient's personal value system. |
| Outcome | |
| Citation | Partnership for Caring, Inc. (2001), Fact Sheet, In re Greenspan. |
|
|
