In early September 2026, in Vermont just south of Montreal, Barbara Duprey was 81 years old and her body was in the dying process. She had no prospect of recovery. She had multiple organ systems failing.
Duprey's advance directive and both her children indicated that she would want all measures to prolong her life. But her guardian determined that comfort measures were appropriate. The Superior Court agreed. The family appealed but the appellate court would not grant a stay. So, treatment was withdrawn and Duprey died
Why did both courts permit the guardian to contravene both the advance directive and evidence from the family? First, The court concluded that it was in Duprey’s best interests to remove the ventilator and change the goal of care to comfort care. Second, the court concluded that Duprey's prior expressed wishes were not a true expression of her true desire in her current situation.
This isn't entirely accurate, Thaddeus, or better stated, it is incomplete. The court found that there was not a valid AD, while treating a written statement wanting treatment that it was. Court also found that the patient was actually telling medical personnel she wanted to stop, but not her children. It wasn't a presumption. I was struck that everyone was acting in good faith.
ReplyDeleteYes. The purported AD was not a legal AD. But the court said it would reach the same result even if it were a legal AD.
ReplyDeleteSo, the remarkable aspect of the case is that the court permitted the guardian to make a decision that contravened both (1) the patient's almost AD and (2) the patient's children.