Wash. Rev. Code » Title 70 · Chapter 70.122
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 70.122.010 (2026)

Legislative findings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that adult persons have the fundamental right to control the decisions relating to the rendering of their own health care, including the decision to have life-sustaining treatment withheld or withdrawn in instances of a terminal condition or permanent unconscious condition.
The legislature further finds that modern medical technology has made possible the artificial prolongation of human life beyond natural limits.
The legislature further finds that, in the interest of protecting individual autonomy, such prolongation of the process of dying for persons with a terminal condition or permanent unconscious condition may cause loss of patient dignity, and unnecessary pain and suffering, while providing nothing medically necessary or beneficial to the patient. The legislature further believes that physicians and nurses should not withhold or unreasonably diminish pain medication for patients in a terminal condition where the primary intent of providing such medication is to alleviate pain and maintain or increase the patient's comfort.
The legislature further finds that there exists considerable uncertainty in the medical and legal professions as to the legality of terminating the use or application of life-sustaining treatment where the patient having the capacity to make health care decisions has voluntarily evidenced a desire that such treatment be withheld or withdrawn.
In recognition of the dignity and privacy which patients have a right to expect, the legislature hereby declares that the laws of the state of Washington shall recognize the right of an adult person to make a written directive instructing such person's physician to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment in the event of a terminal condition or permanent unconscious condition. The legislature also recognizes that a person's right to control his or her health care may be exercised by an authorized representative who validly holds the person's durable power of attorney for health care.
[ 1992 c 98 s 1; 1979 c 112 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). · cites it 8× “See Wash. Rev. Code § 70.122.010 (1994); Brief for Petitioners in No.”
McNabb v. Dep't of Corr., 163 Wash. 2d 393 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 3× “” RCW 70.122.010 (emphasis added). “Life-sustaining treatment” includes “artificially provided nutrition and hydration, to sustain .”
McNabb v. Dep't of Corr., 180 P.3d 1257 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 3× “" RCW 70.122.010 (emphasis added). "`Life-sustaining treatment'" includes "artificially provided nutrition and hydration, to sustain .”
Compassion in Dying v. State of Wash., 850 F. Supp. 1454 (W.D. Wash. 1994). · cites it 6× “Thus, the plaintiffs and others who make knowing and voluntary choices to commit physician-assisted suicide by definition fall outside the realm of the State’s concern.”
DiNino v. State, 684 P.2d 1297 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 4× “The NDA recognized that adult individuals have a fundamental right to make decisions concerning medical care, including the decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment if terminally ill.”
Compassion In Dying v. State Of Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996). · cites it 6× “" RCW 70.122.010. 73 In adopting the statute, the Washington legislature necessarily determined that the state's interest in preserving life is not so weighty that it ought to thwart the informed desire of a terminally ill, competent adult to refuse medical treatment.”
In Re the Welfare of Colyer, 660 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “The legislature further finds that, in the interest of protecting individual autonomy, such prolongation of life for persons with a terminal condition may cause loss of patient dignity, and unnecessary pain and suffering, while providing nothing medically necessary or beneficial…”
In Re the Guardianship of Grant, 747 P.2d 445 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “010 provides: The legislature finds that adult persons have the fundamental right to control the decisions relating to the rendering of their own medical care, including the decision to have life-sustaining procedures withheld or withdrawn in instances of a terminal condition.”
In Re the Guardianship of Hamlin, 689 P.2d 1372 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “RCW 70.122.010 and .030(1)(d). Thus, Hamlin could never have executed a valid directive under the act.”
Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 79 F.3d 790 (9th Cir. 1996). · cites it 5× “” RCW 70.122.010. 73 In adopting the statute, the Washington legislature necessarily determined that the state’s interest in preserving life is not so weighty that it ought to thwart the informed desire of a terminally ill, competent adult to refuse medical treatment.”
Stewart-Graves v. Vaughn, 162 Wash. 2d 115 (Wash. 2007). “of Appellants at 35 (citing RCW 70.122.010, the Natural Death Act). The Natural Death Act applies to competent adults, not minors, and carefully conditions the right to refuse lifesaving treatment on fulfillment of a number of procedural safeguards that are absent under the…”
Stewart-Graves v. Vaughn, 170 P.3d 1151 (Wash. 2007). “of Appellants at 35 (citing RCW 70.122.010, the Natural Death Act). The Natural Death Act applies to competent adults, not minors, and carefully conditions the right to refuse life-saving treatment on fulfillment of a number of procedural safeguards that are absent under the…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.