Master California Court of Appeal recognized a competent adult's right to refuse life-sustaining treatment, including a respirator, grounded in common-law autonomy and the state constitutional right to privacy. with this comprehensive case brief.
Bartling v. Superior Court is a foundational California decision on patient autonomy and the right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. The case squarely asked whether a competent adult, conscious and communicative, could demand withdrawal from a mechanical ventilator even though doing so would foreseeably lead to death and even though the patient did not fall within the statutory definition of "terminal" illness under the then-governing Natural Death Act. In answering yes, the court anchored the right not only in common-law principles of bodily integrity and informed consent, but also in the California Constitution's explicit right to privacy.
For law students, Bartling marks a critical step in modern bioethics jurisprudence, clarifying that the right to refuse unwanted medical care is not confined to non-life-sustaining interventions or to patients deemed terminal. It also delineates the limits of state interests—preserving life, preventing suicide, protecting the integrity of the medical profession, and safeguarding third parties—when balanced against a competent adult's decisional autonomy. The opinion helped set the doctrinal stage for later cases, including Bouvia and Conservatorship of Wendland, by articulating the baseline rule that bodily self-determination includes the right to decline treatments that merely prolong the dying process or an unwanted existence.
Bartling v. Superior Court, 163 Cal. App. 3d 186, 209 Cal. Rptr. 220 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984)
William Bartling was hospitalized at Glendale Adventist Medical Center with severe, chronic pulmonary disease that left him dependent on a mechanical ventilator. He experienced ongoing pain and suffering, repeatedly expressed a desire to have the ventilator withdrawn, and signed written requests documenting his wishes. His family supported his decision. The treating physicians and hospital, however, refused to remove the ventilator, citing ethical concerns, fear of civil or criminal liability, and the view that Bartling did not qualify as "terminal" under California's Natural Death Act and therefore could not lawfully demand the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Bartling and his family sought judicial relief to effectuate his decision. The trial court declined to order withdrawal of the ventilator and effectively permitted the hospital to continue treatment over Bartling's objections. Bartling petitioned for extraordinary relief in the Court of Appeal to vindicate his right to refuse further life-sustaining medical intervention.
Does a competent adult patient have the right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment—specifically, withdrawal from a mechanical ventilator—even if death will foreseeably result and the patient is not terminally ill under the Natural Death Act?
Under California law, a competent adult has both a common-law right to bodily autonomy and informed consent—and a state constitutional right to privacy—that encompasses the right to refuse any medical treatment, including life-sustaining interventions, notwithstanding that death may result. This right is not limited by the Natural Death Act's terminal-illness provisions, which do not preempt or restrict broader common-law and constitutional rights. Withdrawal of unwanted treatment at a competent patient's direction does not constitute suicide or homicide, and physicians and hospitals honoring such refusals incur no civil or criminal liability. Providers who conscientiously object need not participate but must allow transfer or otherwise not obstruct the patient's lawful choice.
Yes. The Court of Appeal granted relief, directing the trial court to permit withdrawal of the ventilator in accordance with Bartling's competent, informed refusal. The court held that the Natural Death Act does not cabin a competent adult's broader constitutional and common-law right to decline life-sustaining treatment, and that honoring such a refusal is lawful and noncriminal.
The court began with the bedrock common-law principle that every person has the right to bodily integrity and, consequently, to refuse medical treatment—principles long embedded in informed-consent doctrine (e.g., Cobbs v. Grant). It then located an independent and reinforcing source of protection in the California Constitution's explicit right to privacy (art. I, § 1), which safeguards personal autonomy in intimate medical decision-making. Those twin sources, the court explained, necessarily include a competent adult's prerogative to decline life-sustaining care, even when refusal will hasten death. The hospital's reliance on the Natural Death Act failed because the statute did not purport to displace or narrow common-law and constitutional rights. The Act provided an additional, statutory pathway for certain end-of-life choices (particularly for the "terminally ill"), but it was not exclusive. Limiting patient autonomy to the Act's terms would invert its purpose and deny core constitutional protections to patients like Bartling who are competent and express clear, contemporaneous wishes. Balancing the state's asserted interests did not alter the outcome. Preservation of life, while weighty, cannot override a competent person's right to refuse bodily invasion. Preventing suicide was inapposite because passive refusal of medical treatment is not the legal or moral equivalent of suicide; it is a choice against unwanted intervention, not an affirmative self-destruction. Protecting the ethical integrity of the medical profession was actually furthered—not undermined—by respecting patient autonomy and informed consent. As to third-party interests, there were no dependents or circumstances sufficient to outweigh Bartling's decisional rights. The court also emphasized that physicians and hospitals are not compelled to perform acts contrary to conscience; objecting providers may transfer care or step aside, but they cannot veto a competent patient's lawful refusal. Finally, the court addressed concerns about provider liability, making clear that compliance with a competent patient's informed refusal of treatment is legally permissible and not subject to criminal or civil sanction. The trial court therefore erred in permitting the hospital to continue treatment over Bartling's wishes; the appropriate relief was to direct removal of the ventilator or enable transfer to clinicians willing to effectuate his decision.
Bartling is a cornerstone of California's right-to-refuse-treatment jurisprudence. It clarifies that a competent adult may decline life-sustaining care irrespective of terminal status, grounding that right in both common law and the state constitutional right to privacy. The case distinguishes withdrawal of treatment from suicide and reassures providers that honoring informed refusals is lawful. It also foreshadows later cases—like Bouvia (force-feeding) and Wendland (standards for incompetent patients)—by establishing the baseline autonomy principle and the framework for balancing state interests. For students, Bartling synthesizes bioethics, tort (battery/informed consent), and constitutional privacy into a coherent doctrine that still guides end-of-life decision-making.
No. The Court of Appeal held that a competent adult's right to refuse treatment is not limited to terminally ill patients. The Natural Death Act provided one statutory mechanism for certain terminal patients but did not constrain broader common-law and constitutional rights to decline unwanted care.
No. The court distinguished refusal of treatment from suicide. Honoring a competent patient's decision to discontinue life-sustaining measures is a permissible omission—respecting bodily autonomy—not an affirmative act to cause death. Accordingly, it does not constitute suicide or homicide.
Not when they act in accordance with a competent, informed refusal. The court made clear that honoring such refusals does not subject providers to civil or criminal liability. Providers who object on conscience grounds need not participate but may not obstruct; transfer to willing clinicians is an appropriate accommodation.
Competence turns on the patient's ability to understand the nature and consequences of the decision, communicate a choice, and do so free of coercion. The record reflected that Bartling's refusals were knowing, voluntary, and consistent, which the court deemed sufficient to invoke his rights.
The court weighed preservation of life, prevention of suicide, integrity of the medical profession, and protection of third parties. Each was important but insufficient to overcome a competent adult's fundamental autonomy and privacy interests in refusing unwanted bodily invasion, particularly where no compelling third-party dependency or public harm was shown.
Bartling v. Superior Court crystallizes a central tenet of modern health law: a competent adult controls whether his or her body is subject to medical intervention, even when the intervention sustains life. By rooting this right in both common-law consent principles and California's constitutional right to privacy, the court confirmed that autonomy at the end of life is not a statutory grace but a fundamental legal protection.
For practitioners and students, the case provides the doctrinal framework for analyzing refusals of life-sustaining care: verify competence and informed decision-making; respect the patient's choice; accommodate conscientious objections through transfer; and recognize that state interests, though weighty, rarely defeat a competent patient's express, voluntary refusal of treatment.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →