Post-Saikewicz Judicial Actions Clarify the Rights of Patients and Families

Abstract

As Lee Dunn points out in his accompanying article, the Saikewicz case has been widely misunderstood and misinterpreted by health care providers both in Massachusetts and elsewhere. Two Massachusetts Appeals Court cases, Dinnerstein and Lone v. Canduru, have clarified some of the more controversial aspects of Suikewicz and should allay some of the fears which that case produced. The more important of the two decisions — Dinnerstein — involved the legality of “do not resuscitate” orders (DNR's) in the absence of a court order.Mrs. Dinnerstein was diagnosed as suffering from Alzheimer's disease in July of 1975, although she probably had been afflicted with the disease since 1972. Alzheimer's disease is a progressive, unremitting disease of the brain which leads to disorientation, memory loss, loss of intellectual function, and, eventually, loss of all motor function. The usual course of the disease is five to seven years during which time the patient generally becomes a complete invalid and has to be institutionalized.