The court departed sharply from other courts in the country (before and since) in at least two ways. First, it found no sustainable right to privacy (either in the Missouri Constitution, or in the U.S. Constitution) which would support the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from an incompetent patient absent any clear and convincing evidence of the patient's wishes. Second, it declared artificial nutrition and hydration to be ordinary medical care that must be provided in almost all circumstances. It also found that the state's interest in preserving life were absolute, unqualified, and "particularly valid in Nancy's case because she is not terminally ill."