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

Harrisburg, PA (LifeNews.com) -- In a ruling involving a mentally disabled man whose legal guardians sought the power to end his medical care, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has determined that state law requires life-preserving treatment for people who are not near death and have not refused treatment.

The Alliance Defense Fund and allied pro-life attorneys filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of 53-year-old David Hockenberry, who has had acute mental disabilities since birth, arguing that his legal guardians should not be allowed to deny him life-preserving treatment while he is not terminal or unconscious.

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

“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.

"The court made the right decision to protect Mr. Hockenberry’s right to live. He is not dying or unconscious, and his life isn't worthless just because he has a disability that may lead others to view his life as less worthy to live," he added.

“A person’s value isn't based on his or her physical or mental abilities,” said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “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.”

In 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.

Hockenberry’s guardians filed a petition with a trial court in January 2008 that would allow them to end his care if a similar situation were to arise in the future. The Department of Public Welfare objected, stating that Hockenberry was neither terminally ill nor permanently unconscious and never appointed a third party with the power to refuse healthcare necessary to the preservation of his life.

Hockenberry’s guardians filed a series of appeals until their case reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

In March, ADF and allied attorneys argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that people should not be considered better off dead just because of a disability. The high court concurred that the Health Care Agents and Representatives Act requires life-preserving care for such persons.

“We hold that where, as here, life-preserving treatment is at issue for an incompetent person who is not suffering from an end-stage condition or permanent unconsciousness, and that person has no health care agent, the Act mandates that the care must be provided,” the opinion states. “The enactment...regulates the situation in which the incompetent person suffers from a life-threatening but treatable condition, obviously reflecting the Legislature’s assertion of a policy position of greater state involvement to preserve life in such circumstances.”

Related web sites:
Alliance Defense Fund - http://www.telladf.org

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.

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"?

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.

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?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.