A quadriplegic man who won a court case allowing him to starve himself to death died last month in the nursing home in which he was a resident. He was 49 years old.

Christian Rossiter was a resident of the Brightwater Care Group nursing facility in Marangaroo, a suburb of Perth, Western Australia. Admitted in November 2008, Mr. Rossiter became a quadriplegic as a result of three serious injuries. The first of these occurred in 1988 when he fell 100 feet from an apartment from which he suffered head and other injuries. He made a substantial recovery but in 2004 he sustained a spinal injury following a collision with an automobile while he was riding a bicycle. The final blow came last year when he suffered two falls.

As a consequence of his injuries, Mr. Rossiter was generally unable to move. The extent of his capacity to move was limited foot movement and the ability to wriggle one finger. He could talk only through a tracheotomy. Mr. Rossiter received food and water through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube (PEG).

Totally dependent upon others for the provision of the necessaries of life, earlier this year Mr. Rossiter demanded that the nursing home not provide him food and water, but only with sufficient hydration necessary to dissolve medications for palliative care to reduce his suffering as his life waned.

The nursing facility did not wish to risk criminal prosecution for denying him sustenance; it therefore petitioned a Western Australian court for clarification, to which Mr. Rossiter consented.

In short, Mr. Rossiter was seeking legal approval from a court for the right to starve himself to death.

On August 20, the Supreme Court of Western Australia granted Mr. Rossiter his request. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Wayne Stewart Martin succinctly set forth the issues:

“This case therefore lacks many of the factors which have complicated other cases in this area. Mr Rossiter is not a child, nor is he terminally ill, or dying. He is not in a vegetative state, nor does he lack the capacity to communicate his wishes. There is therefore no question of other persons making decisions on his behalf. Rather, this is a case in which a person with full mental capacity and the ability to communicate his wishes has directed those who have assumed responsibility for his care to discontinue the provision of treatment which maintains his existence. The question I am asked to decide is whether, in those circumstances, Brightwater is legally obliged to comply with Mr Rossiter’s direction or, alternatively, legally obliged to continue the provision of the services which will maintain his life.”

Noting “the strength of the principle of self-determination,” in ruling in Mr. Rossiter’s favor Justice Martin wrote, “Mr Rossiter has the right to determine whether or not he will continue to receive the services and treatment provided by Brightwater and, at common law, Brightwater would be acting unlawfully by continuing to provide treatment contrary to Mr Rossiter’s wishes.”

The court also ruled that the Western Australian criminal code does not impose on Brightwater a duty to provide the necessaries of life to Mr. Rossiter against his wishes.

With respect to Mr. Rossiter’s request for palliative care, Justice Martin remarked that as long as his physician did not administer medications for the purpose of hastening or causing Mr. Rossiter’s death, the physician should not fear criminal prosecution.

As it turned out, Mr. Rossiter did not get the opportunity to starve himself. Instead, before he started fasting he contracted an upper-respiratory infection and died on September 21. He did refuse antibiotics and other medical treatment.

Brightwater Care Group v. Rossiter, August 20, 2009.

Shared with permission from the Elder Law Practice of Tim Takacs.