Pennsylvania appeals court rules against parents who want to take developmentally disabled son off ventilator

From The AP:

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A Pennsylvania appeals court ruled Feb. 10 against the parents of a severely retarded man who sought to take him off a ventilator after he developed complications from choking on a hairpin.

The state Superior Court said a guardian needs to prove that death is in the legally incompetent person's best interests before the guardian can decline life-preserving medical treatment.

"In the context of this case, where an incompetent person suffers a medical condition, and recovery appears imminent and the pain is minimal, the ethical integrity of the medical community certainly mandates treatment and the state's interest in preserving life is considerable," wrote Judge Cheryl Lynn Allen for a three-judge panel.

The patient, a 50-year-old man identified in court records by his initials, was born with profound mental retardation and had not executed a legal document expressing his wishes regarding life-sustaining treatment.

He developed pneumonia in December 2007 after choking on the hairpin and was transferred from the Ebensburg Center , a state-run mental retardation treatment center that has been the man's home for 45 years , to Johnstown's Memorial Hospital.

The hospital connected him to a mechanical ventilator over his parents' objections, and it was three weeks before he had recovered enough to be removed from the machine.

His parents filed an action in Cumberland County court in January 2008, asking a judge to review the matter because the core legal question was likely to arise in other circumstances. The state Public Welfare Department objected, and the county judge ruled against them.

Public Welfare spokeswoman Stacey Witalec said Tuesday the department was pleased with the appeals court's decision but had no other comment.

Messages left late Tuesday for lawyers who represented the patient, his parents and Memorial Hospital were not immediately returned.

The Superior Court panel said its decision would not necessarily extend to a case involving a patient in a persistent vegetative state or suffering from an end-stage medical illness. The ruling did not spell out precisely the circumstances that would justify such a decision by a guardian.

"A court should be able to conclude, without hesitation, that extending life would amount to an inhumane act that runs so contrary to basic notations of fundamental decency that death furthers the best interest of the incompetent," Allen wrote.