Guardianship of Grant, In re

CourtWashington Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtCALLOW; PEARSON; ANDERSEN; Mark Siegler, M.D. and Alan J. Weisbard; BRACHTENBACH; GOODLOE; DORE
CitationGuardianship of Grant, In re, 747 P.2d 445, 109 Wn.2d 545 (Wash. 1987)
Decision Date10 December 1987
Docket NumberNo. 52609-5
Parties, 56 USLW 2341 In re the GUARDIANSHIP OF Barbara GRANT, An incompetent Person.

Note: Also See 757 P.2d 534. Cathy Blinka, Lonnie G. Davis, Tacoma, for appellant.

Hugh M. Robinson, Puyallup, for respondent.

CALLOW, Justice.

This case involves the situation of Barbara Grant, an individual suffering from the incurable neurological disorder known as Batten's disease. Barbara's mother and legal guardian, Judith Grant, sought a court order that would authorize the future withholding of mechanical or artificial life sustaining procedures from Barbara. The trial court denied the request, and Judith Grant appealed directly to this court. Following oral argument, we issued an order reversing the trial court's decision. The order provided:

The guardian, Judith Grant, natural mother of Barbara Grant, is authorized to approve and direct the withholding of life sustaining procedures utilizing mechanical or other artificial means including cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrilation, the use of a respirator, intubation, the insertion of a naso-gastric tube, and intravenous nutrition and hydration.

With this opinion we state the reasons for our ruling.

Barbara Grant is one of four children of Judith and Gary Grant. Barbara, now 22 years old, is afflicted with the terminal illness known as Batten's disease. Her brothers, Edward (24) and Jeffrey (18), are also afflicted with this disease. Only her sister, Joy Lynn (15), is not similarly afflicted.

Batten's disease is a genetic, neurological, degenerative condition of the central nervous system. There is no known cure. Most victims die in their teens or early twenties.

Victims of the disease usually start life as normal appearing children. The first symptom is a problem with vision, followed by epileptic seizures and a loss of motor control which causes the child to stagger. Later, the child has speech difficulties. Eventually the child can no longer walk or talk and is completely blind. Batten's disease also causes severe mental retardation, with intellectual functions progressively failing. The child develops difficulty with swallowing, caused by a loss of voluntary muscle control. Brain control of the heart and lungs deteriorates, initially causing irregular heart rate and breathing, and finally, cardiac or respiratory arrest. Ultimately the child's vital functions fail, resulting in death.

Barbara Grant has followed the typical pattern of Batten's disease. She was a normal child with, at first, normal to above average intelligence. At age 5 she began to have vision problems. By 1978, when Barbara was 14, her parents could no longer meet her special needs and she was admitted to the Rainier State School in Buckley, Washington. Barbara's brother Edward, also afflicted with Batten's disease, moved with her to the school. At this time, Barbara was declared legally incompetent and her mother was appointed as her legal guardian.

When she arrived at the School in 1978, Barbara was blind, somewhat verbal, able to answer questions, and able to take care of herself in terms of self-help skills and feeding. She was walking with light assistance. She was described as moderately retarded, with a mental age of 6 years. Since then her condition has deteriorated dramatically.

Dr. Albert de Vera became Barbara's primary care physician in June 1984. He testified that by this time, Barbara was not only blind, but also had difficulty swallowing, virtually no speech or voluntary movements, and epileptic seizures from two to nine times a month. These findings are corroborated by a psychological report filed in October 1984. Although Barbara was alert and responsive to stimulation, and could react to various sounds, she could barely communicate, being able to produce only "throaty noises, vowel sounds and high-pitched whines" that occasionally resembled the words "hi", "no", and "help". Her mental age was estimated at about 2 months.

During the next year, Barbara's condition continued to deteriorate. By October 1985, she had lost all of her self- help skills. She could not walk or feed herself, and had urinary and bowel incontinence. She could not turn from side to side in bed, lying most of the time on her right side with her hands clenched or crossed and tightly pulled to her chest. She could not sit up in a wheelchair by herself, had no control over her head and only limited use of her hands. She had to be tied in bed to be restrained from harmful movement caused by seizures. She had more and more difficulty swallowing food.

Barbara's intellectual and cognitive functions had virtually disappeared toward the end of 1985. She was unable to respond to a standard intelligence test, and the psychologist at Rainier School estimated her mental age to be between 2 weeks and 1 1/2 months. Barbara had, at most, only a fleeting awareness of her environment. Although she could still respond to sound, she showed little if any awareness of music. She would occasionally smile or laugh, but at inappropriate times. She could still feel sensation and respond to touch, and occasionally differentiate between people she liked and disliked. However, she no longer responded at all to the presence of her father, mother, or brother, Edward.

Barbara's condition had also begun to affect the autonomic respiratory and cardiac regulation centers of the brain. On one occasion in September 1985, her pulse rate dropped, her breathing became irregular and she started to pale. The medical nurse at Rainier School gave Barbara cardiopulmonary resuscitation and administered oxygen. Barbara was then transported to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. After observing her for 4 hours, the physicians at Harborview determined that her respiratory distress was caused by Batten's disease, and that there was no further treatment that could improve her condition. Barbara was sent back to Rainier School that same night.

Physicians from both Rainier School and Harborview agree that Barbara is now in the latter stages of Batten's disease with no hope of improvement. Although they cannot state precisely when she will die, they agree that her death in the near future is inevitable. Paul Hageman, staff physician at Rainier School, testified, "I believe Barbara will die shortly from this disease." Dr. Hageman further stated that Barbara is "near death being nearly comatose ..." R.H.A. Ruvalcaba, clinical director at Rainier School, testified that Barbara is in the terminal stages of the disease and "in an almost vegetative state with little if any response to human contact." Dr. de Vera, Barbara's primary treating physician at Rainier School, stated that she showed "clinical signs of progressive deterioration that appear to herald the terminal stages of her disease". Dr. Oscar Erikslund, another physician at Rainier, testified that her death could come "at any time;" and Dr. Michael Copass of Harborview stated that, based on his knowledge of Barbara's condition, he expects she will die soon.

Barbara Grant is no longer capable of expressing how she feels about her life. In addition, she has never explicitly expressed her desires regarding the use of life sustaining medical treatment should that become necessary in the future. Her mother believes she would not want such treatment, based partly on the fact that Barbara has shown a dislike for taking medication, being made to use a cane, and having suction tubes used on her, and also because Barbara has shown a dislike for the medical staff. Barbara's mother said she also believes that Barbara is prepared for her death. Father James Boyle, the chaplain at Rainier School, concurs. He has known Barbara and her family, who are devout Catholics, for almost 10 years. He said he has spoken often to Barbara, and that she understood she would die at an early age. Father Boyle believes that Barbara has come to accept death and looks at her life as a gift which she has a right to give back to God.

Barbara's mother testified that she wants Barbara to die as naturally and peacefully as possible, without the application of intrusive medical treatment to merely delay the inevitable. She stated, "I think it's time for man to stand back and let God take over." Barbara's father expressed the same view, as have other members of her immediate family.

On October 2, 1985, Judith Grant, Barbara's mother, moved in Pierce County Superior Court for an "Order authorizing the withholding of life support systems" from her daughter. Although the order does not specify which means of life support the Grants wish to have withheld, their brief before this court indicates that they do not want the following to be used if Barbara should suffer either cardiac or respiratory arrest or if she should lose her ability to swallow: (1) cardiopulmonary resuscitation; (2) a defibrillator (used to revive the heart); (3) an artificial respirator; (4) intubation (insertion of a tube down the throat to the lungs for breathing); (5) a nasogastric tube (nose-to-throat tube for artificial feeding); and (6) intravenous feeding.

The Grants sought the present order because Rainier, a State-operated school, had a stated policy of using all measures necessary to sustain the life of an individual and, if the necessary treatment was not available at Rainier, to transport the individual to another hospital where treatment was available. The Attorney General representing Rainier School stated, however, that the School would follow the guardian's wishes if the court entered an order upholding the Grants' motion.

Prior to the trial court hearing on this matter, a guardian ad litem and a separate "attorney for Barbara Grant" were appointed. At the hearing, Judith Grant, Barbara's immediate family, and the guardian ad litem all asked to have life support systems withheld. Hugh Robinson, the "attorney for Barbara Grant", was...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
45 cases
  • In re AMB
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan
    • January 25, 2002
    ... ... 132 Rosebush, by approving the reasoning in In re Guardianship of Barry, 133 also rejected the proposition that parents must qualify as guardians before being allowed to decide to withdraw their minor child's ... 386, 389, 461 N.W.2d 671 (1990) ("The Legislature has given a broad grant of authority to the probate court to protect children who come within its jurisdiction.") ...          15. In re Hatcher, 443 Mich ... ...
  • Guardianship of L.W., Matter of
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • September 4, 1991
    ... ...         [167 Wis.2d 74] Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 825 n. 23, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 2693, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988). An incompetent individual does not relinquish the right to refuse unwanted treatment by virtue of incompetency. In re Guardianship of Grant, 109 Wash.2d 545, 554, 747 P.2d 445, 449 (1987); Rasmussen, 154 Ariz. at 219, 741 P.2d at 686 ("Other jurisdictions have unanimously concluded that the right to refuse medical treatment is not lost merely because the individual has become incompetent and has failed to preserve that right."). The ... ...
  • Cruzan by Cruzan v. Harmon
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1988
    ... ... Section 188.010, RSMo 1986, announces the "intention of the General Assembly of Missouri to grant the right to life to all humans, born and unborn ... " Section 188.015(7), RSMo 1986, determines that a fetus is viable "when the life of the unborn ... E. Guardianship Issues ...         Nancy is incompetent; she cannot make informed choices concerning her medical treatment. We therefore do not decide ... ...
  • Vacco v. Quill
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 26, 1997
    ... ... Elston, 858 S.W.2d 698, 707 (Ky.1993); People v. Adams, 216 Cal.App.3d 1431, 1440, 265 Cal.Rptr. 568, 573-574 (1990); Guardianship of Jane Doe, 411 Mass. 512, 522-523, 583 N.E.2d 1263, 1270, cert. denied sub nom. Doe v. Gross, 503 U.S. 950, 112 S.Ct. 1512, 117 L.Ed.2d 649 ... 692, 710, 553 A.2d 596, 605 (1989); State v. McAfee, 259 Ga. 579, 581, 385 S.E.2d 651, 652 (1989); In re Grant, 109 Wash.2d 545, 563, 747 P.2d 445, 454-455 (1987); In re Gardner, 534 A.2d 947, 955-956 (Me.1987); Matter of Farrell, 108 N.J. 335, 349-350, ... ...
  • Get Started for Free
15 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Estate Planning, Probate, and Trust Administration in Washington (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...99, 795 P.2d 1196 (1990): 12.2(4)(c) Graham v. Radford, 71 Wn.2d 752, 431 P.2d 193 (1967): 3.7(1)(b) Grant, In re Guardianship of, 109 Wn.2d 545, 747 P.2d 445 (1987), amended, 757 P.2d 534 (1988): 6.3(2) Green v. Am. Pharma. Co., 136 Wn.2d 87, 960 P.2d 912 (1998): 13.1(3) Guardianship of Ro......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • Washington State Bar Association Washington Civil Procedure Deskbook (WSBA) Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...Grange Ins. Ass'n v. State, 110 Wn.2d 752, 757 P.2d 933 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1004 (1989): 4.6(5) Grant, In re G'ship of, 109 Wn.2d 545, 747 P.2d 445, amended, 757 P.2d 534 (1988): 19.6(1)(a) Grant v. Cole, 23 Wash. 542, 63 P. 263 (1900): 62.6(5) Grant Cnty. Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 ......
  • The best interests standards: a comparison of the state's parens patriae authority and judicial oversight in best interests determinations for children and incompetent patients.
    • United States
    • Issues in Law & Medicine Vol. 7 No. 3, December 1991
    • December 22, 1991
    ...858 (1981); Delio v. Westchester County Med. Ctr., 129 A.D.2d 1, 516 N.Y.S.2d 677 (1987); In re Guardianship of Grant, 109 Wash. 2d 545, 747 P.2d 445 (1987) (en banc), modified, 757 P.2d 534 (Wash. 1988). See also infra notes 355-57 and accompanying text. (16) See, e.g., In re Conservatorsh......
  • Informed consent: from the ambivalence of Arato to the thunder of Thor.
    • United States
    • Issues in Law & Medicine Vol. 10 No. 3, December 1994
    • December 22, 1994
    ...to privacy); Leach v. Akron Gen. Medical Center, 426 N.E.2d 809, 814 (Ohio C.P. 1980) (constitutional right to privacy); In re Grant, 747 P.2d 445, 449 (Wash. 1987) (en banc) (both constitutional right of privacy and common-law (34)See, e.g., Union Pac. R.R. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (......
  • Get Started for Free