Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States involving a young adult incompetent.

[3] The trial court ruled that constitutionally there is a "fundamental natural right ... to refuse or direct the withholding or withdrawal of artificial life-prolonging procedures when the person has no more cognitive brain function ... and there is no hope of further recovery.

[2] The legal question was whether the State of Missouri had the right to require "clear and convincing evidence" for the Cruzans to remove their daughter from life support.

Specifically, the Supreme Court considered whether Missouri was violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing to remove Nancy's feeding tube.

]"[7] The Cruzans' lawyer summarized the constitutional basis for his appeal thusly: The issue in this case... is whether a state can order a person to receive invasive medical treatment when that order is contrary to the wishes of the family, when it overrides all available evidence about the person's wishes from prior to the accident, when the decision to forego treatment is among acceptable medical alternatives and when the state gives no specific justification for that intrusion other than their general interest in life.

[6] In a majority opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Court ruled that competent individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause.

[6] However, with incompetent individuals, the Court upheld the state of Missouri's higher standard for evidence of what the person would want if they were able to make their own decisions.

[2] Cruzan's case had attracted national interest, and right-to-life activists and organizations filed seven separate petitions with the court asking to resume feeding, but were found to have no legal standing for intervention.

[14] The Act required hospitals and nursing homes that received federal funding to give patients advance-directive information and explain right-to-die options that are available under the laws of their states.