Pennsylvania Court: Guardians Can't Pull the Plug on Mentally Disabled People

“Having a disability shouldn't be a death sentence when treatable medical complications arise,” said Independence Law Center Chief Counsel Randall L. Wenger, one of the allied attorneys.

Yet that is precisely what Zero and his death panels will make it if they have the chance.

Pro-Life Ping

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Gee. You wouldn’t think people who wanted their ward to die would be allowed to be “guardians”.

Praise be to Jesus Christ!

This is the decision of his guardians? They’re really his worst enemies. How despicable, and how this poor man must feel knowing what they tried to do.

Thank God for this ruling. Thank God. I will never forget Terri Schiavo. Never!

“No one should be allowed to decide that a person’s life is not worth saving just because he or she has a disability or medical condition.”

Tell that to President Obortion.

Hockenberry’s guardians unsuccessfully attempted to deny him temporary life-preserving medical treatment for pneumonia.

The guardians should be stripped of their POA.

Is the state going to start paying the medical bills? or are they going to force the guardians to continue to pay under threat of arrest?

Who are these people? I cannot in my wildest imagination come up with a reason why they would want to kill him.

My instincts tell me to follow the money...

It’s really sad that this had to be decided by a court. What sort of care-givers want to deliver death instead of care? Or take it upon themselves to make that decision?

There is a very special place in hell ....

Is the state going to start paying the medical bills? or are they going to force the guardians to continue to pay under threat of arrest?

Do YOU think that those who cannot afford to pay their medical bills should be left to die?

Because if you do, you are basically advocating rationing and death panels.

Why do you seem to oppose the conservative pro-life condition? Or do you just think that the disabled don't deserve to live?

It looks as though the patient has Down’s Syndrome. They usually develop dementia and heart problems in their 40’s. He may not be unconscious. It would be worthwhile to know exactly what kind of condition he is in and whether or not there is any brain activity. Choosing not to treat an infection is not that uncommon in the final days of life especially if there is no significant brain activity.

Did you just stumble in here? Perhaps you’re unaware this a conservative forum. We don’t advocate murdering inconvenient people.

Do YOU think that those who cannot afford to pay their medical bills should be left to die?

Do you think the Government should take money from me at the point of a gun to pay for it?

Because if you do, you are basically advocating rationing and death panels.

Bullcrap.

Why do you seem to oppose the conservative pro-life condition?

When did the 'conservative' position become forcing one person with the threat of fines, prison, and ultimately death if they don't want to provide money of their own free will?

Or do you just think that the disabled don't deserve to live?

I think people deserve to keep the fruits of their labors without a bunch of Nanny State busybodies demanding their money for whatever pet cause it is they think is 'moral'.

Theft isn't moral no matter the reason you're stealing for.

He recovered from pneumonia in 2007. He must have had brain activity since then, because dead bodies don’t mimic life signs for three years.

He RECOVERED!

“n December 2007, Hockenberry developed aspiration pneumonia. Hockenberry’s guardians—appointed as his legal guardians in 2002 by a trial court—tried to decline his required ventilator treatment to assist his breathing, but the hospital proceeded despite their objection. After three weeks on the mechanical ventilator, he recovered from pneumonia and no longer required the treatment.”

It doesn’t talk about any pre-existing condition either.

He has pneumonia. How expensive is that to treat?

Good points.

I didn’t know they were forced to serve as guardians. Could you provide a link to back that up.

>>I think people deserve to keep the fruits of their labors without a bunch of Nanny State busybodies demanding their money for whatever pet cause it is they think is ‘moral’.<<

So if a disabled human cannot produce fruit, should he be euthanized?

WOW!

What is left unsaid about caring for the mentally incompetent or disabled is how damnably bankrupting and life-draining it is for the guardian(s), as the necessity for acute care drags on for decade after decade.

The majority of families cannot afford that kind of care and cannot stop working to support themselves or other members of the family to concentrate on just one non-productive member.

Criticizing people who are in this position, accusing them of selfishness for NOT sacrificing their lives to the care of a disabled family member is grossly unfair.

I do want to add that this young man doesn’t appear to be dying from a terminal disease and wanting to withhold treatment for pneumonia was very cruel.

“Is the state going to start paying the medical bills? or are they going to force the guardians to continue to pay under threat of arrest? “

I am certain the state is already paying his bills. Guardians aren’t responsible for bills. They are supposed to act on behalf of helpless people.

The case here was that the custodians had no legal right
to withhold treatment without the client's consent,
once care was initiated

The Doctors hands were bound to
rules of best medical practice as
the patient could not speak for himself, and
there is no Adult Competent Spouse, Child, Parent, Sibling, (In that order)
or Court appointed Power of Attorney to speak for him

The Custodians were requesting
pre-established restraint of care,
when they were not any one of those categories
As best I can tell

Also, I didn’t see any indication that his guardians are forced to pay for his care out of their own funds. I’d like a link for that too.

I didn’t know they were forced to serve as guardians.

Can you quote where I said that they were? Thanks in advance. Have a super day.

Do you think the Government should take money from me at the point of a gun to pay for it?

That's not the point. Do YOU think those who cannot afford to pay their medical bills should be left to die? YES or NO.

When did the 'conservative' position become forcing one person with the threat of fines, prison, and ultimately death if they don't want to provide money of their own free will?

So, YOU think the conservative position should be to let people die for lack of medical care?

I think people deserve to keep the fruits of their labors without a bunch of Nanny State busybodies demanding their money for whatever pet cause it is they think is 'moral'.

So, you consider life a "pet cause"?

Also, I didn’t see any indication that his guardians are forced to pay for his care out of their own funds.

Which means that I'm forced to pay for it by the Government. Thanks, sweetie. Real 'moral' of you.

Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that they were forced to serve as guardians against their will, and forced to pay for his care out of their own pockets.

Those who try to save money by advocating for ending care of certain classes of people under certain situations, are going to force society to pay a bigger price than the cost of that the medical intervention would have cost in dollars.

We have to take care of people like this, because the consequences of not doing so are ones we literally can’t afford to live with.

I don’t support most state paid health care. But we have it.

And we have no alternative safety nets, because they have largely been dismantled due to the extreme welfare hammock.

So we are in that awkward in between place.

I don’t support Medicare. But having had all these folks including myself pay into it since employed, it makes me angry when honest Medicare claims are denied, as in the case with an elderly relative of mine. He “paid” for it.

You and I “pay” for the health care of handicapped people, especially the many abandoned by their families (whether deliberately or because they have passed away or whatever).

Since I “pay” for that care, I want it paid out.

I’d like to work back to a system of personal responsibility, then family responsibility, then church or charity responsibility.

But when you have people who just can’t care for themselves (like a 5 year old) and the parents can’t or won’t care for them, and there is no extended family to care for them, what do you do? Force a church or the Red Cross? Sue the Salvation Army? Let the kid die by the side of the road?

Either the very dependent are going to be left literally to die, or the government is going to have to make some provision for the worst case scenarios. These would be minors, severely physically handicapped, seriously crazy, severely retarded, and the very frail elderly.

I am all for suing and jailing deliberately negligent parents, also.

Which means that I'm forced to pay for it by the Government. Thanks, sweetie. Real 'moral' of you.

In other words...

"60,000 Reichsmark is what this person
suffering from hereditary defects costs
the community during his lifetime.
Fellow Germans, that is your money,
too. Read 'New People', the monthly
magazine of the Bureau for Race
Politics of the Nazi Party."

Sad. And they’re called guardians. I’ll call them bastards.

>>Which means that I’m forced to pay for it by the Government. <<

So if a disabled person doesn’t have the money for his pneumonia treatment, should he be left to die? Would you be willing to pay for something to relieve his pain? Too costly? Or should we just drop him off at the Humane Society?

New show on Animal Planet. “Disabled Human Cops” They humanely euthanize, you know.

The majority of families cannot afford that kind of care and cannot stop working to support themselves or other members of the family to concentrate on just one non-productive member.

"Non-productive"? Is that the newspeak for "worthless eater"?

Criticizing people who are in this position, accusing them of selfishness for NOT sacrificing their lives to the care of a disabled family member is grossly unfair.

Killing the disabled is the pinnacle of selfishness.

I do want to add that this young man doesn’t appear to be dying from a terminal disease and wanting to withhold treatment for pneumonia was very cruel.

So, you condone the killing of the disabled with some conditions but not others? What criteria do you use to determine who lives and who dies? What is your method of rationing?

It should also be noted that Medicaid, which is the last ditch of government funding, does seek to recoup from estates where possible.

Okay, so -- because Lurker doesn't favor Theft, he is therefore Hitler. Great argument. (And an automatic "You Lose" under Godwin's Law).

The Sixth Commandment states, "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
It does not say, "Thou Shalt Steal other people's money in order to extend life."

After all, that would be a violation of the Eighth Commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Steal".

We must be careful not to embrace theories that deem taxation to be ipso facto a crime.

What is your problem?! Did I say ANYTHING condoning the killing of anyone!!

I suggest you go back and read what I wrote. It obviously hit a nerve with you and I bet it is because you have never been in a position of sacrificing your time and money to care for another like I have.

I know your kind — you carp and criticize by don’t know squat!

>>It does not say, “Thou Shalt Steal other people’s money in order to extend life.”<<

So should we just euthanize them? Humanely?

Are you familiar with wagglebee’s extensive history here? I suggest you stow that broad brush back where it belongs.

And an automatic "You Lose" under Godwin's Law

That is why I developed "Wagglebee's Corollary" to "Godwin's Law" and that is that whenever the subject is euthanasia or eugenics, some supporter of those agendas will inevitably state something that perfectly mirrors Nazi propaganda. This nullifies ANY CLAIM to Godwin's Law.

Right. Completely different situation. They were speaking German, Lurker was speaking English. They were talking about Reichsmark, Lurker was talking about Dollars. They were writing in a magazine, Lurker was writing on the Internet.

You need to read up on Godwin’s Law and find out what it really means. If you can’t comprehend that, it’s best not to tackle the Holy Bible. You’re in over your head.

That would cost money too. What a dilemma.

Too late for Terri.

I suggest you butt out!

Everyone has the right to have a living will made out that orders doctors to not give life saving care.

If a person is not legally capable (for whatever reason) of signing such a form themselves then I see no reason why their legal guardians could not do it for them, this IS their purpose under the law.

I didn't see specifically anywhere in the article that said that the guardians thought the boy should be killed because he is retarded. Maybe they are just the type of people (like me) who wouldn't want aggressive measures to be taken to save my life, especially if it was going to bankrupt my family to do so.

We must be careful not to embrace theories that deem taxation to be ipso facto a crime.

And Romans 13:1-10 tells us exactly what Moral justifications God permits for Taxation:

The Punishment of:

Murder
Adultery
Theft
Fraud
and "Covetousness" (according to the Laws of the Old Testament, this applies in cases of abuse or malfeasance where no actual Theft is involved).

And THAT'S IT.

"You may Steal your Neighbor's money to pay for your pneumonia medicine" just ain't in there.
That is NOT Biblical Morality. That is Marxist Morality.
And Karl Marx hated the God of the Bible.