the ethical integrity of the medical profession. Grant, 109 Wn.2d at 556; see also Cruzan, 497 U.S. at 284 (the state may require “clear and convincing” evidence of an incompetent patient’s wishes as a condition for allowing the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment). ¶40 As this court has recognized, the State’s interest in the preservation of life may permit the State to compel a patient to accept life-sustaining treatment. Colyer, 99 Wn.2d at 124. However, if the patient’s condition is hopeless and there is “ ‘no reasonable possibility of returning to a cognitive, sapient state,’ the patient’s right of privacy outweighs the State’s interest in preserving life.” Id. at 134 (quoting Superintendent of Belchertown State Sch. v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728, 370 N.E.2d 417 (1977) (<HOLDING>)). Similarly, the State’s interest in
recognizing that defendant had no right to withhold the requested exemplars recognizing right to withhold lifesustaining treatment from a formerly competent adult in a permanent vegetative state holding that a tortfeasor is required to pay the expenses of over treatment or unnecessary medical treatment unless such treatment was incurred by the victim in bad faith  holding that youthful offender treatment is not a fundamental right recognizing the principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment