Court Opinion

ID: 9698041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:40:10.578173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:37.806966
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
dissenting.
The tragic plight of Daniel Joseph Fiori and his mother, Rosemarie Sherman, presents issues which challenge the competence of the judicial process. We are confounded because the issue presented is one where law, metaphysics and theology intersect, thus, overtaxing our poor powers to provide a proper solution.
While I esteem the sensitive and reasoned dispositions espoused by my learned colleagues, I find myself in agreement with the position of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and would adopt a position which coincides with his.
Which is to say that I would find that the court erred in failing to appoint a guardian ad litem for Mr. Fiori, who, after all, has his continued human existence as the subject matter of *673this litigation. I would hold that this was basic and fundamental error which transcends the strictures of Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co., 457 Pa. 255, 322 A.2d 114 (1974). I would further hold that life sustaining medical care and treatment should not be withdrawn absent clear and convincing evidence of Mr. Fiori’s intent to terminate life-sustaining procedures. I would reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with these requirements.