The right to die is being judicially recognized in an ever-increasing variety of circumstances where medical intervention could otherwise prolong or even save life. The right to die has been recognized not only with respect to persons faced with imminent death without life sustaining treatment and the terminally ill, but also to persons whose lives could be saved by appropriate medical treatment. Recent cases indicate the types of treatment that may be withdrawn or refused are expanding beyond ‘extraordinary’ treatments, such as respirators and other life support systems, to include surgical procedures, chemotherapy, dialysis, blood transfusions, and, most recently, artificial feeding.

Of course, most right to die decisions are not made by courts. These difficult decisions are usually made by the affected persons or their representatives in consultation with the attending physician or physicians. Judicial intervention is normally sought when the medical facility or attending physician refuses to terminate treatment, or when a patient refuses consent for necessary treatment, particularly where the patient is a minor or otherwise incompetent and the guardian is unwilling to consent on the patient's behalf.

The right to die is premised upon a number of theories: the common law ‘right to bodily integrity,’ the constitutional ‘right to privacy,’ the first amendment right of ‘free exercise’ of religion, and state ‘natural death’ statutes.