Which case held that a competent adult patient has the right to decline any and all forms of medical intervention, including lifesaving or life-prolonging treatment?

• A. Davis v. Hoffman
• B. Roe v. Wade
• C. Plessy v. Ferguson
• D. Miranda v. Arizona

Answer: (A)

The main concept here is patient autonomy in medical decisions—the right of a competent adult to refuse any medical intervention, even if that intervention is lifesaving or life-prolonging. This reflects the ethical and legal obligation to respect a patient's informed choices about their own body. When a patient is decision-capable, clinicians must honor their wishes regarding treatment, document the decision, provide clear information about options, and avoid imposing care the patient does not want. Historically, cases like Quinlan and Cruzan illustrate that patients or their legally authorized surrogates can refuse treatment and that such refusals should be respected when competence and informed understanding are present.

The other cases involve different legal issues: Roe v. Wade centers on abortion rights; Miranda v. Arizona concerns rights when questioned by police; Plessy v. Ferguson addresses racial segregation. None of these establish the principle that a competent adult may decline medical treatment, which is why the chosen case best captures the concept tested.