Court Opinion

ID: 9703056
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:38:16.243968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:45.112396
License: Public Domain

BECK, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent.
The majority sensibly frames the issue narrowly: whether the evidence was of “such quality” that it was proper for the court to appoint a temporary guardian to consent to a blood transfusion for an adult Jehovah’s Witness member.
*76Unlike the majority, I would conclude that at the point that the trial court appointed the assistant hospital administrator as guardian, the court did not have evidence of “such quality” that its action should be affirmed. Other relevant evidence was available to the court and necessary for its determination.
I agree with the majority that the existence of the medical alert card alone would not support an application of the doctrine of substituted judgment. The trial court, however, did not request or hear the testimony of the patient’s parents or his fiancee, who were present in the hospital. Even in this emergency situation, the judge had readily available, by telephone, witnesses who were prepared to testify as to, among other things: whether the patient signed the medical alert card and, if he did, under what circumstances; whether the patient was an adult; and whether the patient’s beliefs were firm and whether he would have adhered to them if death was certain. The trial court should have heard this testimony.
It may well be that, in this particular case, even after hearing such testimony the trial judge would have been justified in concluding that the patient’s intent had not been sufficiently proven. The court could then have properly appointed the assistant hospital administrator as temporary guardian to consent to blood transfusions.
The majority excuses the trial court’s failure to hear the available testimony on the ground of “its (the court’s) knowledge that they (the parents) were committed to the tenets of Jehovah’s Witness.” Maj. op. at 73-74. In an action of this nature a court cannot refuse necessary testimony because it concludes on its own in advance what that testimony will be. I do not deny the urgency of the situation faced by the trial judge in this case. The parents’ and the fiancee’s testimony, however, was available to the judge on the same emergency basis as the doctor’s and the assistant hospital administrator’s, and such testimony was *77essential to the judge before he decided to appoint the assistant hospital administrator as guardian.
The majority cites In re Osborne, 294 A.2d 372, 374-75 (D.C.1972), for the proposition that substituted judgment should be applied reluctantly and that “it is better ... to make a first-hand appraisal of the patient’s personal desires and ability for rational choice.” Id. I would agree that a competent patient’s first-hand expression of his or her desires is the best guidepost for a court. The portion of Osborne quoted by the majority goes on, however, to conclude that, in the absence of the possibility of asking the patient, a court should “give weight to the known instinct for survival.” Maj. op. at 72. Such a statement comes very close to stating a compelling state interest in always sustaining life in any situation.
I am very concerned that by quoting with approval the above passage and by affirming the trial court’s action in spite of its failure to take available testimony, the majority’s opinion will be read more broadly than intended. I do not view the holding in this case as requiring courts in the future to approve life-preserving treatment to incompetent adults in a broad variety of emergency situations in the face of available evidence of the patient’s intent to the contrary. I would therefore emphasize the narrowness of the holding in this case. The state’s interest in preserving life must give way to the patient’s much stronger personal interest in directing the course of his own life. Matter of Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 348, 486 A.2d 1209, 1223 (1985). Competent, persons generally are permitted to refuse medical treatment, even at the risk of death. Id., at 352, 486 A.2d at 1225. I would hold that the same should be true of incompetent persons, if it can be determined that their desires as expressed when competent would continue to constitute their present intent. See In re Osborne, supra, 294 A.2d at 375 n. 5 (rejecting view that the state must have a compelling interest in sustaining life).
Since the trial court refused to hear essential testimony, in a proper case, I would have reversed.