Conservatorship of Burton

Good Law
170 Cal. App. 4th 1016·88 Cal. Rptr. 3d 524
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 2009F054863California2,559 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiseman, J.

In this case we resolve a conflict in statutory language relating to mental capacity to give or refuse consent to medical treatment. Harrison Burton, a state prison inmate, argues that, although he embarked on a hunger strike based on delusional beliefs, the Probate Code gave him the right to continue the hunger strike because his mental condition did not impair his understanding of its potential fatal consequences. He expresses his view this way in his opening brief: “The [Probate Code] does not grant the authority to a court to take away an individual’s right to make health care decisions for . . . stupid or, even, delusional reasons.” (Italics added.)

The trial court ruled that the delusional beliefs meant Burton’s decision was not based on a rational thought process and that under the code he therefore lacked the mental capacity to refuse the nourishment (and medicine) prison doctors sought to compel him to take. The court granted the doctors’ petition to authorize prison administrators to consent to treatment on Burton’s behalf. We agree with the trial court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORIES

As a result of the latest in a series of hunger strikes, Burton was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.