The court accepted the "substituted judgment" of the family, despite the fact that Paul Brophy had never expressed his medical treatment preferences in writing, and never explicitly referred to artificial feeding in his conversations. It argued that individuals have a common law and constitutionally protected right to be free from "nonconsensual invasion of one's bodily integrity." It also argued that the state's interest in preserving life is overridden by the individual's interest when "the burden of maintaining corporal existence degrades the very humanity it was meant to serve." The court rejected the argument that removing the tube would constitute a suicide, writing that: "The law recognizes the individual's right to preserve his humanity, even if to preserve his humanity means to allow the natural process of disease or affliction to bring about a death with dignity." It noted that artificial nutrition and hydration was a medical procedure that could be rejected like any other, and that withdrawing feeding was no different (and just as acceptable) as withholding feeding in the first instance. Finally, it rejected the argument that allowing removal of the tube would somehow degrade the medical profession (the Academy of Neurology and the American College of Physicians both filed "friend of the court" briefs on Patricia Brophy's behalf. See American College of Physicians position statement).