In re D.L.H

D.L.H. (David), a 53-year-old man, was born with severe mental disabilities and was incompetent his entire life. David resided at the Ebensburg Center, a facility operated by the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) (defendant). David’s parents, M.I.H. and V.B.H. (the guardians) (plaintiffs), were appointed as David’s plenary guardians. In 2007, David contracted aspiration pneumonia and David’s doctors determined that David needed to be placed on a mechanical ventilator as a lifesaving measure. David’s aspiration pneumonia was a curable, nonterminal condition. David’s guardians attempted to refuse the treatment, arguing it was not in David’s best interest. David’s doctors denied the guardians’ request and placed David on a ventilator. David’s guardians petitioned the court to be appointed as David’s healthcare agents so that they could refuse lifesaving treatment for David without court approval. DPW opposed the guardians’ petition, arguing that healthcare providers were required to provide lifesaving care unless a competent patient or appointed healthcare agent refused lifesaving treatment. David subsequently recovered, rendering the dispute moot; however, the trial court allowed the case to proceed as a matter of great public importance. The trial court denied the guardians’ petition, holding that only a healthcare agent could refuse lifesaving treatment on behalf of an incompetent principal. The guardians appealed. The superior court affirmed, with the modification that a court could authorize a guardian to refuse lifesaving treatment on behalf of an incompetent ward suffering from a severe, permanent condition if clear-and-convincing evidence proved death was in the ward’s best interest. David’s guardians appealed, arguing that the guardianship statute did not specifically prohibit guardians from refusing lifesaving treatment on the ward’s behalf.