The right to be free of unwanted medical treatment has long been recognized in this country. More than one-hundred years ago, in Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251, 35 L. Ed. 734, 11 S. Ct. 1000 (1891), the United States Supreme Court perceived that 'no right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person.' In Schloendorff v. New York Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914), Justice Cardozo stated, 'every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body. . . .' More recently, it has been noted that 'the individual's right to make decisions vitally affecting his private life according to his own conscience . . . is difficult to overstate . . . because it is, without exaggeration, the very bedrock on which this country was founded.' Wons v. Public Health Trust, 500 So. 2d 679, 687 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987), aff'd 541 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 1989 ). The right to control the integrity of one's own body spawned the doctrine of informed consent. In re Duran, 2001 PA Super 52, 769 A.2d 497 (Pa. 2001). Accordingly, the United States Supreme Court has held that a competent adult patient has the right to decline any and all forms of medical intervention, including lifesaving or life-prolonging treatment. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Mental Health, 497 U.S. 261, 111 L. Ed. 2d 224, 110 S. Ct. 2841 (1990).

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/caseofmonth/Oct2007/LinogAppellantFinalBriefMASTER.htm