In the Matter of Cabrera
Pennsylvania Superior Court
552 A.2d 1114 (1989)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Frank and Virginia Ingram (defendants) were parents to six-year-old Tara. In 1988, the Ingrams brought Tara to the children’s hospital (plaintiff) because Tara was feverish, limping, and experiencing hip pain. Tara was diagnosed with sickle-cell anemia. A generally accepted medical treatment for sickle-cell anemia was blood transfusions, which had proven 90 percent effective in other patients in reducing harmful sickle cells. Tests showed that Tara had previously suffered one stroke and that her current symptoms were from a second stroke. The head of the sickle-cell program at the children’s hospital and Tara’s attending physician recommended that Tara receive blood transfusions for the purposes of assessment and treatment. The Ingrams were Jehovah’s Witnesses who were religiously opposed to blood transfusions. The children’s hospital initiated an action to appoint a special guardian for Tara and to obtain a court order allowing initial blood transfusions. The court granted the hospital’s request. After initial blood transfusions, the children’s hospital confirmed Tara’s condition. Without recurring blood transfusions, the attending physician discussed that there was a 70 percent chance that sickle-cell patients would have another stroke and an 80 percent chance that the stroke would occur within three years of an initial stroke. A stroke could be fatal or cause severe mental retardation, loss of speech, loss of intellectual functions, and paralysis. The Ingrams produced the opinions of two other doctors, neither of whom presented a credible alternative treatment for sickle-cell anemia. The children’s hospital also submitted an opinion from the chief hematologist at a different hospital regarding the severe health risks Tara would face if she did not receive blood transfusions. The trial court approved a special guardian and ordered blood-transfusion therapy for one year. The Ingrams appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Popovich, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.