| Statutory Citations | New Jersey |
New Jersey Advance Directives for Health Care Act [1991], N.J. Stat. Ann. §§26:2H-53 to 26:2H-78.
Documents
Free advance directive documents and instructions from Partnership for Caring.
| Court Cases |
New Jersey |
| Case | In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 486 A.2d 1209 (1985). |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| Year | 1985 |
| Patient (age) | Claire Conroy (84) |
| Nutrition + hydration | Nasogastric tube |
| Mental capacity | Severe and permanent mental impairment |
| Decision maker(s) | Nephew (her only surviving blood relative) |
| Setting | A New Jersey nursing home |
| Patient's Wishes | Conroy's nephew testified that Claire Conroy feared and avoided doctors, and, as far as he knew, she had never visited one in all her years. |
| Court's Decision | The court found that treatment, including nasogastric feeding, may be withheld or withdrawn from elderly, incompetent nursing home resident's with severe and permanent mental and physical impairments and a life expectancy of approximately one year or less so long as it is clear that the patient would choose to forgo treatment if able to express a preference, or if the burdens of the continued treatment clearly outweighed the benefits derived from continued life. The court argued that the evidence as to Conroy's desires was too vague and evidence of her suffering to ambiguous to allow for the withdrawal of a feeding tube in this case. |
| Outcome | Claire Conroy died with her NG tube intact, while her case was on appeal. |
| Citation | Partnership for Caring, Inc. (2001), Fact Sheet, In re Conroy |
 |
 |
 |
| Case | In re Jobes, 108 N.J. 394, 529 A.2d 434 (1987). |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| Year | 1987 |
| Patient (age) | Nancy Ellen Jobes (25) |
| Nutrition + hydration | Gastrostomy |
| Mental capacity | Vegetative State (PVS) |
| Decision maker(s) | Husband |
| Setting | Lincoln Park Nursing Home (Lincoln Park, NJ) |
| Patient's Wishes | Mr. Jobes testified as to his wife's general, spontaneous, and casual statements about the desire not to be kept alive by artificial means. |
| Court's Decision |
The court determined the provision of nutrition and hydration by tube to be medical treatment that may be withheld or withdrawn on the patient's behalf if the patient is in a PVS, with no reasonable hope of recovering mental capacity (the condition must be certified by two physician specialists). Even though Jobes's statements were general and casual, the court allowed the family to decide the question of her treatment on her behalf based on (1) prior statements and reactions to medical issues, and (2) all other facets of the patient's personality (including the patient's attitude toward the impact his of her continued existence would have on immediate family members). This decision standard was widely cited and employed by other state courts around the country and came to be known as the "substituted judgment" approach. |
| Outcome | Lincoln Park Nursing Home appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and several lower courts, all of which declined to hear the case. Nancy Jobes was transferred to Morristown Memorial Hospital where she died several days after life support was withdrawn |
| Citation | Partnership for Caring, Inc. (2001), Fact Sheet, In re Jobes. |
|
|
|
| Case | In re Peter, 108 N.J. 365, 529 A.2d 419 (1987). |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| Year | 1987 |
| Patient (age) | Hilda Peter (early 60s) |
| Nutrition + hydration | Nasogastric tube |
| Mental capacity | Vegetative State (PVS) |
| Decision maker(s) | House mate |
| Setting | New Jersey nursing home |
| Patient's Wishes | Hilda Peter's house mate and nine other friends testified that Peter had made clear statements about not wanting to undergo continued life-sustaining treatment in her current situation. |
| Court's Decision | The court allowed feeding to be withdrawn, arguing that a patient's medical preferences should be respected, regardless of mental state or severity of illness. They argued that end-of-life decisions can be made for patients in a PVS because there is no hope of recovery, by definition, and they stipulated that the cause of death would be the underlying disease, not the withdrawal of feeding. |
| Outcome | Feeding was withdrawn and Hilda Peter died a few days thereafter. |
| Citation | Partnership for Caring, Inc. (2001), Fact Sheet, In re Peter. |
|
|
