N.J. court declines to hear families' case against hospital that ended life support

The Star-Ledger ^ | 8/14/10 | Sue Epstein

[wagglebee]

ELIZABETH — An appeals court panel has declined to take up an issue that could have had nationwide implications — whether hospitals can refuse to continue life support over the objections of a patient’s family.

In a 26-page decision released today, the three judges said when Ruben Betancourt died in May 2009, the case brought by his daughter, Jacqueline, against Trinitas Regional Medical Center in Elizabeth to keep him alive, died with him.

"Although we recognize the significance of the issues raised by the parties and (their supporters) on appeal, we conclude that both the lack of an adequate factual record as well as the limited, but unique, factual context presented, warrant dismissal of the appeal as moot," the judges wrote.

Todd Drayton, the East Brunswick attorney who represented the Betancourt family, said "we’re happy. The family ultimately got what it wanted. This case isn’t about the broad issues. The fact is it is all about Ruben Betancourt."

[wagglebee]

In January 2009, the medical staff at Trinitas decided to stop providing Ruben Betancourt — who had been in a vegetative state for almost a year — with dialysis and place a "Do Not Resuscitate" sign on his bed because doctors believed he was dying and treatment was "inhumanely" prolonging the dying process, Riveles told the judges during oral argument in April.

This will soon be routine of Zero gets his way.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Ping

[wagglebee]

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 ]

[ScottinVA]

Wow... talk about a Pandora’s Box. Is it a stretch to see this practice extended to elderly patients who are NOT in a vegetative state? Economic viability and all...

[wagglebee]

Is it a stretch to see this practice extended to elderly patients who are NOT in a vegetative state?

Or not even sick?

[Gorzaloon]

The simple solution is to not involve the courts in holding people accountable for murder by fiat.

[La Lydia]

Death panel policy development.

[Red Badger]

...or not even elderly?...........

[caseinpoint]

That headline is misleading. While the family initially brought a case to force the hospital to restore life support and rescind the DNR order, that was resolved in favor of the family and treatment restored. It was the hospital which wanted to pursue the matter through appeals in order to establish a precedent permitting hospitals to do what it did, or at least establishing some kind of ruling.

While that is a worthwhile goal, it is clear the family had no desire to represent the other side on behalf of patients statewide since the father had already passed and they had a lower court ruling that favored patients. When one party has no personal interest in pursuing a matter, they must demonstrate they have enough of an interest in an appeal to aggressively represent their side on behalf of similarly situated persons. It was proper to dismiss it since the family didn’t want to continue the suit. It is the hospital which is disappointed in the dismissal.

[NonValueAdded]

Death panel made its ruling, who are you, patient’s family, to question their decision?

[wagglebee]

It was the hospital which wanted to pursue the matter through appeals in order to establish a precedent permitting hospitals to do what it did, or at least establishing some kind of ruling.

Precisely, the hospital went to court to try to get the court to grant hospitals the authority to convene death panels.

[wagglebee]

Pinged from Terri Dailies