Also known as: interest analysis · interests-analysis · governmental interest analysis
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A method of resolving disputes by weighing and balancing the relative interests of the parties when no prior agreement governs the matter at issue.
Ivy Ibarra and Igor Ito created several frozen embryos during their marriage through in vitro fertilization at a local clinic. After their divorce, no written agreement addressed disposition of the embryos. Ivy now seeks to donate them for research while Igor objects and wants them destroyed. The court weighs Ivy's interest in advancing scientific research against Igor's interest in avoiding unwanted genetic parenthood and awards control to Igor.
Israel Irving lies in a persistent vegetative state with no advance directive. His wife seeks to discontinue artificial nutrition while his parents insist on continued treatment. The court applies interests analysis by comparing the burdens of prolonged medical intervention against any possible benefit to the patient and authorizes removal of the feeding tube.
Nancy Ellen Jobes, age thirty-one, was admitted to Riverside Hospital on March 11, 1980, following an automobile accident that killed her four-and-one-half-month-old fetus. During surgery to remove the fetus, she suffered severe loss of oxygen and blood flow to her brain, resulting in massive and irreversible damage. She has remained unconscious since that time. On July 28, 1980, she was transferred to the Lincoln Park Nursing Home, where she has resided continuously. Her condition includes a tracheostomy, catheter, chronic infections, atrophied and contracted limbs, and inability to swallow; since June 1985 she has received nutrition and hydration through a jejunostomy tube inserted into her small intestine. In May 1985, her husband John H. Jobes, III, and her parents requested that the nursing home withdraw the j-tube. The nursing home refused on moral grounds. Mr. Jobes then filed suit in the Chancery Division seeking authorization to withdraw the tube, asserting that his wife was in a persistent vegetative state and would choose to terminate artificial feeding if competent. The court appointed Richard Kahn as guardian ad litem, who after investigation supported the request. The nursing home moved for appointment of a life advocate, which was denied. The Public Advocate intervened in opposition. Prior to trial, the judge visited Mrs. Jobes at the nursing home. After a seven-day trial in 1986, the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. Jobes was in an irreversible persistent vegetative state and that she would not want to be sustained by the j-tube. The court authorized withdrawal under physician supervision but permitted the nursing home to maintain the tube until Mrs. Jobes could be transferred. The judgment was stayed pending appeal. Both Mr. Jobes and the nursing home petitioned for direct certification, which the Supreme Court granted. Medical evidence presented at trial included examinations and tests at Cornell Medical Center by Dr. Fred Plum and Dr. David Levy, who concluded Mrs. Jobes was in a persistent vegetative state, along with supporting testimony from other neurologists. Conflicting testimony came from Dr. Allan Ropper and Dr. Maurice Victor, who examined her briefly at the nursing home and concluded she had some cognitive responses. Family members and friends testified about prior statements Mrs. Jobes had made indicating she would not want to live in a condition like Karen Quinlan's.
View caseA court turns to interests analysis only after determining that no enforceable prior agreement between the parties addresses the disposition or use of the disputed subject matter. Once that threshold is met, the court weighs the parties' competing interests directly.
Supporting sources
The balancing generally favors the party wishing to avoid procreation unless compelling circumstances justify a different result.
Supporting sources
Interests analysis evaluates the situation from an objective external stance by comparing needs, risks, and benefits to the affected person. Substituted judgment instead attempts to determine what the person would have chosen if able to decide.
Supporting sources