CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - A judge was wrong to conclude that court approval is needed for a guardian’s request to remove a woman from life support, the New Hampshire Supreme Court said in an opinion released Wednesday.
The 69-year-old woman, identified as “L.N.,” was admitted to Concord Hospital in 2018 after suffering a stroke. Doctors said damage to her brain was irreversible.
L.N.’s court-appointed guardian said while L.N. never specifically stated her end-of-life preferences, the two had discussed the subject in general. The guardian’s sense was that L.N. would want to be allowed to have a natural death.
A circuit court judge ruled the guardian would need prior court approval before deciding to end L.N.’s life support. The judge also said a question remained as to whether L.N. would regain an ability to communicate. The guardian appealed.
State law doesn’t specifically mention life-sustaining treatment requiring a judge’s prior approval. The supreme court concluded the guardian’s general authority includes the decision to end life support, in appropriate circumstances.
It noted that no one spoke in opposition to the removal of L.N.’s life support at a court hearing. It said where there was no disagreement among the guardian, L.N’.’s attorney and the hospital, the judge’s involvement “was neither necessary nor warranted.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.