In re Drabick.

• Author: DiSomma, Anthony V.
• Position: California

In re Drabick

HELD: A conservator may decide to withdraw artificial

life support systems on behalf of a conservatee who is in

a persistent vegetative state if the decision is based on

medical advice and takes into account the best interests of the

conservatee.

The petitioner David Drabick brought this action as the conservator for his brother William J. Drabick III. Petitioner first sought the removal of a nasogastric feeding tube in superior court and upon being denied, brought this matter to the attention of the higher court. The petitioner argued that because his brother had been "comatose in a persistent vegetative state since 1983," a natural death should be permitted. In re Drabick, No. H002349, slip op. at 1 (Cal. Ct. App. April 12, 1988) (Agliano, J.).

On February 5, 1983, William Drabick was involved in an automobile accident and sustained severe head injuries. Despite emergency care doctors were not able to return William to consciousness. Id. at 2-3. Even though he is in a persistent vegetative state, he is able to breathe without a respirator and is considered alive according to California law. The forty-four year old patient is now living in a nursing home unable to communicate, care for himself, or respond to sound or stimulation. Id. at 3. Moreover, one of his physicians related that his potential for rehabilitation was nonexistent, and that upon court approval she would agree to remove or direct removal of the nasogastric tube. Id. at 4.

Conservatorship Proceedings

Pursuant to Probate Code section 2355 (a), the court found that William lacked the capacity to give his informed consent to treatment, and appointed his brother as successor conservator. Id. The court subsequently allowed the conservator to withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation and electrical cardioversion should the patient sustain a heart attack or similar emergency. Id. Without any opposition, the conservator petitioned the superior court on December 30, 1985, for authority to permanently remove William's nasogastric tube and withhold all other type of medical procedures. Id. at 5. Drabick's brothers shared the belief that his life, in it's present state, was not acceptable. The county public defender who had been appointed to represent Williams agreed that the petition was in William's best interest. Id.

A declaration was filed in support of the petition by Ms. Gonzalez, a woman who had lived with Drabick for twelve years. She felt that based on numerous conversations with Drabick, that he would decline to be kept alive through artificial means. Id. at 5-6. Two particular instances were then highlighted by the court. When Drabick's father was dying of liver cancer and being maintained artificially, Ms. Gonzalez related that Drabick mentioned that he would never wish to be kept alive through artificial means. Id. at 6. The other incident, involved Drabick's reaction to being diagnosed as having polycystic renal disease. Even though the disease could become fatal, it is controllable through proper diet, medication, and the avoidance of alcohol. Id. Ms. Gonzalez related that Drabick refused to heed the medical advice and at one instance stated: "I won't be attached to a kidney machine. If I die, I die." Id...