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

Life News ^ | 8/30/10 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

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

[SatinDoll]

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!

[netmilsmom]

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

So should we just euthanize them? Humanely?

[HiTech RedNeck]

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

[wagglebee]

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.

[BykrBayb]

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.

[HiTech RedNeck]

That would cost money too. What a dilemma.

[murphE]

Too late for Terri.

[SatinDoll]

I suggest you butt out!

[TexasFreeper2009]

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.

[Christian_Capitalist]

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.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Granted, dilemmas like this ought to be addressed at a sub-governmental level wherever possible. It’s not just avowed liberals who unconsciously believe in “it takes a village” (or a city hall).

[HiTech RedNeck]

Would not the prevention of murder qualify?

[HiTech RedNeck]

The sentiment is then mutual.

[wagglebee]

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

You implied that it would be unselfish to leave someone to die.

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.

The only nerve you hit was the callousness with which you support the abandoning of the most vulnerable.

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

You mean those who value life over money? Read Matthew 25:31-46 sometime, it explains why I believe what I do.

[Christian_Capitalist]

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.

Okay, howzabout this, smart guy: you don't even understand Basic Causality.

You do not comprehend the difference between "intentionally Causing Death" and "permitting death to naturally occur".

Since you can't understand basic causality, you're frankly not yet mentally equipped even for kindergarten. Perhaps you should go play with your toy trucks in the sandbox until you have some comprehension of "cause" and "effect".

[BykrBayb]

Good thing this nation isn’t organized according to your misinterpretation of the Bible. How long do you think we would have lasted without an organized military?

[HiTech RedNeck]

Post flagged as personal attack.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Supposedly such a military could only “punish” evil — it could never head evil off.

[Christian_Capitalist]

Would not the prevention of murder qualify?

Actually, in Biblical Ethics, "preventing murder" is generally left to individual self-defense. If the individual succeeds in preventing a murder (even by killing the presumptive murderer), there's generally no cause for Government Action.

However, in any case -- "Murder" is NOT Biblically defined as "permitting death to naturally occur". That just isn't Murder, according to any verse anywhere in the Bible.

[wagglebee]

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.

Really? You believe that a guardian is empowered to end someone's life WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT?

I didn't see specifically anywhere in the article that said that the guardians thought the boy should be killed because he is retarded.

No, they just wanted to leave him to die.

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.

Antibiotics to treat pneumonia are not very expensive.

Nevertheless, you seem to be trying to make a case for allowing someone to die on the basis of cost when there is no indication that this was the guardian's motivation.