9
life, in some form, continues" (In Re: Daniel Joseph Fiori 1995, 2-3). He felt no pain or
pleasure, and bodily functions were maintained through a gastronomy tube. The
prevailing medical opinion was that there was no hope for recovery.
After seventeen years in this condition, his mother who was also his court-
appointed guardian filed a petition with the court asking that the feeding tube be
withdrawn. She admitted that her son had never spoken previously with her about this
subject; however, based on his "love of life" she felt that he would not have wanted to
remain indefinitely in a PVS. The nursing home refused, but a judge upheld her request.
When the Attorney General appealed the decision, the Superior Court sided with Daniel's
mother. It stated that a decision to remove life support from an adult in a PVS who did
not leave any advance directives could be made by a close family member and two
qualified physicians without court approval.
In 1998 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard the case of Anne Goldman. Anne
was an 80-year-old living in a health care facility. She had developed a foot ulceration
for which antibiotics and whirlpool treatments had been prescribed. Her primary
physician's prognosis included the warning that if left untreated, gangrene would develop
resulting in death, barring amputation of the diseased limb.
Mrs. Goldman suffered from Alzheimer's disease (SDAT) and had become
uncommunicative. Her daughter, who was also the durable power of attorney (DPOA)
stated that her mother had been adamant about "right to die" issues, and in previous
conversations and written directives had requested that no heroic measures be employed
in the event her quality of life should become diminished. The court determined that (1)
antibiotics and whirlpool treatments were to continue, but (2) in light of her diminished
3
The following summaries are taken from Caputo and Mellon 1999, 254.