Satz v. Perlmutter
Florida District Court of Appeal
362 So. 2d 160 (1978)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Abe Perlmutter (defendant) suffered from Lou Gehrig’s disease, a progressive neurodegenerative disease affecting the nervous system. Perlmutter’s condition was terminal and had deteriorated to the point that he was incapable of movement. Perlmutter was entirely reliant on a mechanical respirator to continue breathing. Even with the respirator, Perlmutter’s life expectancy was short. Perlmutter was able to speak, albeit with great difficulty, and was legally competent. Perlmutter, with the agreement of his family and adult children, wanted to remove the respirator. Perlmutter fully understood that removing the respirator would result in his near-immediate death. Perlmutter testified that his life had become a misery and that, although he wanted to live, he only wanted to do so if he could continue living under his own power. The State of Florida, represented by State Attorney Michael Satz (plaintiff), challenged Perlmutter’s plan to remove himself from life support, arguing that (1) the state’s duty to preserve life overrode Perlmutter’s wishes; and (2) terminating life support constituted an unlawful killing. After a bedside hearing with Perlmutter, the trial court held that, under the constitutional right to privacy, Perlmutter had the power to remove his respirator and thereby refuse its life-sustaining medical treatment. The state appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Letts, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.