Does a patient have a right to refuse medical treatment including sustenance?

"[W]hile fundamentally compelling, the right to be free from nonconsensual invasions of bodily integrity is not absolute. Four state interests generally identify the countervailing considerations in determining the scope of patient autonomy: preserving life, preventing suicide, maintaining the integrity of the medical profession, and protecting innocent third parties. [Citations.]" (Thor v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 738 [competent, quadriplegic prison inmate has right to refuse medical treatment including sustenance].)

Generally, the state's interest in preserving life does not outweigh the individual's right to choose. "[T]he state has not embraced an unqualified or undifferentiated policy of preserving life at the expense of personal autonomy. [Citation.] As a general proposition, '[t]he notion that the individual exists for the good of the state is, of course, quite antithetical to our fundamental thesis that the role of the state is to ensure a maximum of individual freedom of choice and conduct.' [Citation.]" (Thor v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 740.) "The fact that an individual's decision to forego medical intervention may cause or hasten death does not qualify the right to make that decision in the first instance. [Citations.] Particularly in this day of sophisticated technology, the potential medical benefit of a proposed treatment is only one of the factors a patient must evaluate in assessing his or her perception of a meaningful existence. Since death is the natural conclusion of all life, the precise moment may be less critical than the quality of time preceding it. Especially when the prognosis for full recovery from serious illness or incapacitation is dim, the relative balance of benefit and burden must lie within the patient's exclusive estimation: 'That personal weighing of values is the essence of self-determination.' [Citations.]" (Thor v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 739.)