Inclusion Daily Express

International Disability Rights News Service
Click here for home page

Keeping advocates informed, inspired and connected since 1999.
Click here for daily or weekly delivery . . . OR
Try Inclusion Daily Express for two weeks FREE . . .

Robert Wendland

"The decision to treat is reversible. The decision to withdraw treatment is not."
--The California Supreme Court in deciding in August, 2001 that a court-appointed conservator cannot order feeding tubes to be pulled from a conscious yet "incompetent" patient, without that patient's own formal instructions

2005
March 28: Remembering Robert Wendland
2001
January 5: Fate of Accident Victim Rests with State Court
May 30: Groups Show Support For Wendland's Right To Live
July 18: Wendland's Long Battle Ends
August 9: High Court Rules In Favor Of Florence Wendland

Return to Top of Page

Fate of Accident Victim Rests With State Court
January 5, 2001

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA--A car accident in 1993 left Robert Wendland in a coma. Seventeen months later, he came out of the coma, but has been what experts describe as "minimally conscious".

Today, Wendland, 48, can recognize some people and follow certain instructions, his mother Florence says. His wife Rose says her husband, who gets his nourishment through a tube, is "a shell of his former self".

Rose wants the tube removed so her husband can die. Florence wants it to stay.

Robert's fate now is in the hands of the California Supreme Court.

This story from Tuesday's Los Angeles Times looks at Wendland's case, and touches on some of the debate regarding euthanasia, so-called "mercy killing" of people with such disabilities:
http://www.latimes.com/news/state/updates/lat_die010102.htm (Expired)

Return to Top of Page

Groups Show Support For Wendland's Right to Live
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
May 30, 2001

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA--The California Supreme Court is to hear arguments today as to whether Robert Wendland, 49, should be allowed to live or allowed to die.

The case has divided the family of the former auto-parts salesman, and has drawn the attention of disability rights advocates and "right to die" supporters alike.

Wendland was in a coma for 17 months after a roll-over accident in his pickup truck eight years ago. Since he came out of the coma, he has done a number of things including using a communication board, writing his initials, bowling -- even biting a nurse. But he gets his nourishment from feeding tubes, and medical experts say he drifts in and out of consciousness.

Robert's wife, Rose, asked back in 1995 that his feeding tubes be removed and that he be allowed to die, she said, because "it is what he would have wanted".

Robert's mother, Florence, disagreed and filed a lawsuit to keep the feeding tubes in place so her son can continue to live. She pointed out that even though her son is disabled, he is not "brain-dead".

The California medical community, along with 43 bioethicists, support Rose's wish for her husband to die.

According to a press release from disability rights group Not Dead Yet, several national disability organizations and one university affiliated program have filed what is known as an "amicus brief" showing support for Florence and her position that her son should be allowed to live.

The case has implications for thousands of Californians who have guardians appointed to represent them. A year-old state law gives guardians greater authority to make medical decisions for a person -- even if those decisions go against what the person wants -- as long as they are made in "good faith and based on medical advice." Florence and her supporters believe the new law is unconstitutional and expect the case to go to the U.S. Supreme Court if the state court does not overturn it.

Disability rights advocates worry that giving control over such decisions to others would create a direct threat to the lives of people with disabilities, especially in light of increased costs of care and the popularity of "assisted suicide".

"There are millions of people with head injuries, labels of mental retardation and Alzheimers across the nation," said Diane Coleman, Not Dead Yet's founder and president. "They could all become subject to medical killing through removal of treatment - including food and water - regardless of their own wishes in the matter."

A silent vigil was planned for outside and inside the court house where oral arguments would be heard today.

According to the press release, the organizations filing the brief supporting Wendland's right to live include: Not Dead Yet, ADAPT, Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered, The Arc, Brain Injury Association, Inc., Center For Self-Determination, The Center On Human Policy At Syracuse University, The Disability Rights Center, The National Council On Independent Living, The National Spinal Cord Injury Association, and TASH.

Return to Top of Page

Wendland's Long Battle Ends
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
July 18, 2001

STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA--Robert Wendland, the man who had been at the center of a family's legal battle over his so-called "right to die", passed away in his hospital room Tuesday afternoon.

According to a media release from the Life Legal Defense Foundation, Wendland was surrounded by family members, including his mother, Florence, and his sister, Rebekah. The release did not indicate whether Robert's wife, Rose, was present.

A former auto-parts salesman, Wendland spent 17 months in a coma following a roll-over accident in September of 1993. In the years since he came out of the coma, doctors said he had drifted in and out of consciousness. He received food and water through a feeding tube.

Family members and medical experts disagreed over the extent to which he was aware of what was going on around him, and over what his wishes would have been.

In July of 1995, Rose Wendland asked that her husband's feeding tube be removed and that he be allowed to die, she said, because it was "what he would have wanted".

But Robert's mother disagreed and filed a lawsuit to keep the feeding tube in place so her son could continue to live. Florence pointed out that even though her son had a brain injury, he was not "brain-dead".

The case, which could have broad implications for thousands of Californians to whom guardians have been appointed, split Wendland's family and pitted several disability rights groups against groups supporting patients' so-called "right to die". A decision from the California Supreme Court had been expected within the next few weeks as to whether Rose could have her husband's feeding tube removed.

Robert had shown symptoms of illness for the last several weeks, but Rose had forbidden medical professionals to discuss details with his mother. Last week Florence became aware of her son's deteriorating condition and on Monday filed an emergency petition before the court to allow a doctor of her choice to examine her son.

A statement from Rose's attorney on Tuesday indicated that Robert did have pneumonia, and added that Rose was legally entitled to refuse medical treatment for him, including antibiotics.

Final arrangements were not included in the Life Legal Defense Foundation press release, which is available at this web address:
http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0717-154.html

Return to Top of Page

High Court Rules In Favor Of Florence Wendland
By Dave Reynolds, Inclusion Daily Express
August 9, 2001

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA--The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a court-appointed conservator cannot order life-giving food and water withheld from a conscious patient, unless "clear and convincing evidence" proves that the patient wanted to die under those specific circumstances.

The 6-0 ruling in the Conservatorship of Wendland affirms a lower court ruling that while a conservator can make health-related decisions on behalf of an "incompetent" patient, those decisions must be based on the patient's best interests and wishes. Refusing life-sustaining treatment cannot be considered to be in the patient's best interests and wishes, unless if the patient had specifically indicated that in a formal manner while "competent".

The court made it clear, however, that the ruling only applied to conscious patients who were "not terminally ill, comatose, or in a persistent vegetative state", and only to persons who had not left "formal instructions" regarding their health care, or had not appointed a person to make health care decisions for them.

At the center of the case was Robert Wendland, a former auto parts salesman who spent 17 months in a coma following a roll-over accident in September of 1993. In the years after Wendland came out of his coma, medical experts disagreed over how aware he was of his surroundings. He never talked, but did communicate in other ways. He was also able to catch a ball and put pegs in a board.

In 1995, his wife Rose asked that tubes feeding nutrition and water into Robert's stomach be removed and that he be allowed to die. She and other witnesses said that on two separate occasions before the accident Robert had commented that he never wanted to live "like a vegetable".

Robert's mother, Florence, opposed Rose, arguing that her son would have wanted to live.

The case divided the family as it went back and forth all the way to the California Supreme Court.

Robert will not be able to take advantage of the court's ruling. He died three weeks ago from pneumonia.

This case was watched closely by disability rights and other advocacy groups, because of its potential impact on the amount of control conservators and guardians can have when it comes to decisions regarding the life and death of people with "severe disabilities".

The groups that had shown support for Florence Wendland's struggle to keep her son alive included the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Not Dead Yet, ADAPT, Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered, the ARC, Brain Injury Association, Inc., Center for Self-Determination, the Center on Human Policy at Syracuse University, the Disability Rights Center, the National Council on Independent Living, the National Spinal Cord Injury Association and TASH.

The 50-page ruling is available at this web address:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S087265.DOC

Return to Top of Page

Subscribe to Inclusion Daily Express today!

Get your news here!