Helga Wanglie was an 86 year-old patient in a persistent vegetative state and on a ventilator. Her husband, while purporting to acknowledge her diagnosis, did not accept its irreversibility. When the Hennepin County Medical Center staff proposed cessation of Mrs. Wanglie’s treatment and removal of the ventilator, he refused. The medical center petitioned the Probate Court for appointment of an independent guardian to represent Mrs. Wanglie and to determine whether further treatment was appropriate. Mr. Wanglie simultaneously sought appointment as his wife’s guardian. The Probate Court denied the medical center’s petition, and appointed Mr. Wanglie to serve as Mrs. Wanglie’s guardian and to make treatment decisions on her behalf. The court stated that Mr. Wanglie was "the most suitable and best qualified person" to serve from among the available potential guardians for his wife.
Many have labeled this case a "futile treatment case," presumably because the medical center sought to have appointed a guardian whom it believed would give consent to stopping treatment that the medical center judged to be futile. However, the court decided the case strictly as a guardianship matter and did not address the appropriateness of treatment. It is important to note also that neither Mr. Wanglie nor the medical center actually requested the court to determine the appropriateness of the treatment. Therefore, individuals should not attribute to this court decision any legal principles regarding the futility of medical treatment. [Source: In re the conservatorship of Helga M. Wanglie, No. PX-91-283, District Probate Division, 4th Judicial district of the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.]
Principles & Concepts: surrogate decision-making, autonomy, decision-making capacity.
