Skip to comments.
Pennsylvania Court: Guardians Can't Pull the Plug on Mentally Disabled People
Life News ^
| 8/30/10
| Steven Ertelt
Posted on 08/30/2010 4:19:51 PM PDT by 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.
Hockenberrys 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. Hockenberrys 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 persons 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 persons life is not worth saving just because he or she has a disability or medical condition.
In December 2007, Hockenberry developed aspiration pneumonia. Hockenberrys 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.
Hockenberrys 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.
Hockenberrys 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 Legislatures 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
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: avarice; blasphemy; demagoguery; disabilities; euthanasia; greed; humanist; humanistmanifesto; moralabsolutes; murder; prolife; theft
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 301-316 next last
To: wagglebee
For fifteen years I have taken care of two dying elderly parents and the young nephew my sister abandonned.
Mom died five years ago and though defying cancer to a standstill, it was a lung infection that took her from us.
My nephew, after years of therapy due to abuse from his mom and her shack-up-studs, now has his high-school diploma (GPA 3.65) and is contemplating enlisting in the Air Force.
My dad is dying from Alzheimers and I am doing everything possible to keep him sane and alive for as long or longer than the doctors predict.
Unlike those who just talk and read about it, I try to live each day like a Christian.
Now, stop being snarky and insulting, wagglebee, ‘cause you’re trying to read between the lines of what I wrote, and you’re irritating the Hell out of me!
81
posted on
08/30/2010 5:35:44 PM PDT
by
SatinDoll
(No Foreign Nationals as our President!)
To: wagglebee
Hockenberrys guardians unsuccessfully attempted to deny him temporary life-preserving medical treatment for pneumonia.Lovely.
82
posted on
08/30/2010 5:35:44 PM PDT
by
jwalsh07
To: TexasFreeper2009; BykrBayb; Coleus; narses; Salvation; cpforlife.org; EternalVigilance; ...
he spent 3 WEEKS on a ventilator... that means he was in something like critical care unit or ICU for 3 WEEKS, the bill could of been 100s of thousands of dollars, and as his legal guardians... they could be liable for payment of those costs. Could being the operative word. They never claimed that they were.
YOU want to give the guardians powers they never had:
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.
83
posted on
08/30/2010 5:36:22 PM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: HiTech RedNeck
You create a manufactured scenario to support a bent biblical interpretation. There are many feasible military interventions short of your literal "punishment."And each should be considered cautiously and with a presumption of moral restraint, under the guidance of Biblical Ethics.
84
posted on
08/30/2010 5:36:40 PM PDT
by
Christian_Capitalist
(Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
To: Christian_Capitalist
The American people in general, and social conservatives in specific, are world leaders in this kind of charity. Someone who beamed in yesterday from Mars might be excused for not knowing about that.
85
posted on
08/30/2010 5:36:40 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: Christian_Capitalist
I.e. you confess that your earlier interpretation is overly literal.
86
posted on
08/30/2010 5:37:22 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: Christian_Capitalist; BykrBayb; Coleus; narses; Salvation; cpforlife.org; EternalVigilance; ...
Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that the guardian’s desires to end Hockenberry’s life were financial?
87
posted on
08/30/2010 5:37:52 PM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: SatinDoll
88
posted on
08/30/2010 5:38:23 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: HiTech RedNeck
It does not excuse your mode of argument one whit.Right. Feel free to continue applying your interpretation of the rules, only to those whose arguments you personally find inconvenient.
Like I said: That's hypocritical. I expect you'll do it anyway, but perhaps you'll surprise me. But I doubt it.
89
posted on
08/30/2010 5:38:48 PM PDT
by
Christian_Capitalist
(Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
To: netmilsmom
I have a feeling that some here do not believe that people with Down’s Syndrome should have SSI or Medicaid.
90
posted on
08/30/2010 5:39:32 PM PDT
by
wagglebee
("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
To: Christian_Capitalist
So, what should we do with disabled people who can’t care for themselves? Just not treat them? Euthanize them?
91
posted on
08/30/2010 5:39:56 PM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(I am inyenzi on the Religion Forum)
To: Christian_Capitalist
His guardians were not simply refusing to supply his needs. They were petitioning the court to prevent anyone else from supplying his needs either. I don’t have to buy your groceries, but I can’t lock you in a room and refuse to let anyone feed you. That would be murder.
92
posted on
08/30/2010 5:39:56 PM PDT
by
BykrBayb
(Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
To: HiTech RedNeck
I.e. you confess that your earlier interpretation is overly literal.Nope. I confess that you proposed no specific examples, so I proposed no specific answers to your (non-existent) examples.
93
posted on
08/30/2010 5:40:00 PM PDT
by
Christian_Capitalist
(Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
To: Christian_Capitalist
I am correct about you and that is what is irritating you to all this blather. You want to hide your sin under somebody else’s.
94
posted on
08/30/2010 5:40:25 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: Lurker
In your opinion, who should decide what lives are worthy and what lives are not? ANd which live saving or promoting measures are worth doing for which people? Then who gets to decide how much insurance companies should pay out for which conditions? How about age cutoffs?
How about non-profit or hospitals run by relgious groups? Maybe the government should tell them who to keep alive and who to kill, as well?
Once you get into the “let’s kill those who should not live” the line changes and gets closer and closer to - you!
95
posted on
08/30/2010 5:40:55 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.)
To: wagglebee
I think so too.
While we feed kids with parents who choose lottery tickets and cigarettes over food, poor young men like this become the target.
96
posted on
08/30/2010 5:41:20 PM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(I am inyenzi on the Religion Forum)
To: Christian_Capitalist
Then you made a meaningless statement, from your own head.
97
posted on
08/30/2010 5:41:51 PM PDT
by
HiTech RedNeck
(I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
To: BykrBayb
His guardians were not simply refusing to supply his needs. They were petitioning the court to prevent anyone else from supplying his needs either.Didn't see that in the article. If true, then I am certainly opposed to that.
You should have every right to VOLUNTARILY support anyone else's care whom you wish to support, and I will honor and respect you for doing so -- so long as you're not stealing other people's money to do it.
98
posted on
08/30/2010 5:42:20 PM PDT
by
Christian_Capitalist
(Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
To: HiTech RedNeck
Then you made a meaningless statement, from your own head.It was precisely as meaningful as the comment to which it was addressed, upon which it was conditioned.
99
posted on
08/30/2010 5:43:32 PM PDT
by
Christian_Capitalist
(Taxation over 10% is Tyranny -- 1 Samuel 8:17)
To: wagglebee
You are correct, they were his guardians but apparently were not given medical power of attorney, thus the ruling was correct.
However IF they had been granted medical power of attorney by the state, then they could have denied the use of a ventilator to prolong or save his life, just the same as anyone else who doesn't want such measures used on them.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 301-316 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson