In re L. H. R

In In re L. H. R., 253 Ga. 439 (321 SE2d 716) (1984), which involved a four-month-old infant in an irreversible chronic vegetative state, our Supreme Court held that a competent adult patient has the right to refuse medical treatment in the absence of a conflicting state interest and that "this right rises to the level of a constitutional right which is not lost because of the incompetence or youth of the patient." Id. at 446. The Court went on to outline the criteria for the withdrawal of life support in that case, holding that the right to refuse treatment or indeed to terminate treatment may be exercised by the parents or legal guardian of the infant after diagnosis that the infant is terminally ill with no hope of recovery and that the infant exists in a chronic vegetative state with no reasonable possibility of attaining cognitive function. The above diagnosis and prognosis must be made by the attending physician. Two physicians with no interest in the outcome of the case must concur in the diagnosis and prognosis. Although prior judicial approval is not required, the courts remain available in the event of disagreement between the parties, any case of suspected abuse, or other appropriate instances. In re L. H. R., supra, 253 Ga. at 446. The Court further acknowledged that advances in medical science were rapidly expanding the limits of life-sustaining treatment and thus numerous questions regarding the difficult decision to withdraw life support were constantly arising. Id. at 445. The Court therefore limited its holding to the circumstances before it. Id.