Skip to main content
Advertising

Originally published Thursday, July 18, 2013 at 9:19 PM

  • Share:
           
  • Comments (5)
  • Print

Court: Not forcing nursing care isn’t neglect

Refusing to force an elderly woman to enter a nursing home against her wishes is not neglect, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

The Associated Press

Most Popular Comments
Hide / Show comments
Thank goodness for this decision. No adult should be forced to accept medical care... MORE
It's incredible that DSHS would try to force this woman into a nursing home when that... MORE
Self determination, at least that freedom is still allowed in this country. MORE

advertising

The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the guardian of an elderly Pierce County woman was not negligent when she didn’t force her into a nursing home against her wishes.

The court explained in the unanimous ruling that even if the bed-bound woman could have gotten better care in such an institution, she should not have been forced to move into one. Following her wishes was not neglect.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Washington Court of Appeals, citing the Legislature’s mandate against placing incapacitated persons against their will.

The court did not agree with the guardian, however, that she was entitled to be reimbursed for her attorney’s fees. The justices said the Department of Social and Health Services was justified in its investigation, but incorrect in its findings.

The guardian’s attorney, Jeff Crollard, said he thought the Supreme Court decision will be a good guide for guardians in the future.

“I think, in a very sensitive and comprehensive way, the court affirmed the difficulty of the circumstances,” he said. “I don’t think she (Resa Raven, the plaintiff) acted perfectly, but I think she did a pretty darn good job.”

The Department of Social and Health Services said the case highlights the challenges of caring for the elderly.

“The justices indicated that everyone concerned was sincerely acting with the best interests of this elderly woman at heart,” DSHS spokesman Thomas Shapley said. “ It’s an opportunity for all of us to think about and plan for how we will care for our family elders and how we will want to be cared for ourselves.”

The elderly woman, whom the court calls Ida in its ruling, is described as a retired nurse with a long history of independence and reliance on naturopathic and alternative medicine. Since a fall that fractured a bone in her knee, she had suffered from chronic pain as well as several serious and debilitating ailments.

“Ida was resistant to medical care and was combative, violent, hostile and uncooperative with her caregivers,” Justice Debra L. Stephens wrote in the court’s opinion on Resa Raven v. Department of Social and Health Services. Her medical history shows ups and downs, including medical crises and episodes of neglect.

She was assigned a guardian, Resa Raven, in 2004, at the age of 83. After reviewing her medical history and talking with Ida and her family, the guardian identified in the ruling as Raven determined that when Ida was competent, she consistently refused to be placed in a nursing home or other long-term-care facility.

Ida’s health and health care continued to be inconsistent and her behavior continued to be combative, which made keeping caregivers more challenging.

“One of the difficulties of this case from the perspective of Ida’s care team is that Ida often required more care than could be delivered in a home setting,” Stephens wrote.

“But in matters of consent, though a ward may choose a course of action that would strike many as unreasonable, if the guardian can determine that the ward would choose such an action if competent, the guardian is bound to advocate for that position.”

Raven sued the state after DSHS determined she had failed as a guardian and neglected Ida.

The Supreme Court ruling cites previous cases that endorsed a similar ruling, including a decision from 1984 in which a guardian sought a court ruling to force a woman to have a laryngectomy for cancer treatment instead of her preference for radiation.

The court ruled that even though the guardian’s preference was more likely to be a successful treatment, it would also likely cause her to lose her vocal chords. The goal was to do what the individual would want if she were competent and understand her options, not what most people would do or what the court believes is the wise thing to do.

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

Meet the winemakers

Meet the winemakers

View video interviews, conducted by The Seattle Times wine writer Andy Perdue, profiling five of our state's top winemakers.

Advertising

Partner Video

Advertising

Career Center Blog

Career Center Blog

The power of good manners


Advertising
The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►