Procedure In The Case Of Ms. Bouvia's Case

Ms. Bouvia immediately appealed the decision of the trial court, which was summarily heard by the California Appellate court. She then filed a peremptory writ of mandate seeking the removal of the nasogastric tube inserted against her will without consent by physicians. The peremptory writ of mandate is a formal written command from a court of superior jurisdiction to the lower court to change the order or the decision of the lower court. The Court of appeals of California ordered the trial court to enter new order to grant Bouvia’s request for the “(1) removal of the nasogastric tube from her body, (2) prohibiting any and all of the real parties in interest from replacing or aiding in replacing said tube or any other or similar device in

Bouvia was in a competent state of mind when making her decision, and was not in a comatose state nor terminally ill. Regardless, the Los Angeles Superior court argued that the refusal to treatment was only limited to terminally ill patients. However, under the Natural Death Act passed by the California legislature in 1976, which specifies: Procedures a terminally ill person may follow to ensure that his or her right to refuse medical treatment will be respected. The Bouvia court reasoned that although the Act was addressed to terminally ill patients, it expresses the state policy that competent adults have a fundamental right to make decisions about their own medical care. (Fisher, 1987) Therefore, the court decided that there was no reason to limit this right to just terminally ill patients. The court of appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiff by backing up their claim to support the right to refuse treatment, informed consent, right of privacy, and not limited to terminally ill patients. These are valid and legal human rights, which were exclusively hers and neither medical profession nor the judiciary have any veto power. The trial court failed to recognize and protect her exercise of that