S.I. & F.H. v. R.S. & South Nassau Communities Hospital

S.S. suffered from severe obesity that caused respiratory issues. In 2006, S.S. was hospitalized and temporarily placed on a respirator, meaning a machine to breathe for him. During the hospitalization, doctors had to perform a tracheotomy. After S.S.’s release, he continued to see hospital physician Dr. A because of ongoing breathing problems. At an appointment, Dr. A discussed possible consequences of S.S.’s obesity, one of which was long-term use of a respirator. S.S., who loved living a full life, emphatically told Dr. A that he did not want to be placed on a respirator or receive artificial nutrition through a feeding tube. He explained that he had seen others receiving such treatment and would rather die than live like that. In fact, he was already frustrated by his tracheotomy and said that he just wanted to live life on his own terms. At Dr. A’s suggestion, S.S. executed a healthcare proxy at the appointment, having his wife, R.S. (defendant), complete the form. At S.S.’s instruction, R.S. identified herself as S.S.’s proxy to make healthcare decisions on his behalf and wrote the words “I wish to live” in a box for optional instructions. S.S. reiterated to Dr. A that he wanted to live a life on his own terms. Sometime later, S.S. was hospitalized for a heart attack that caused severe brain damage. R.S. refused a feeding tube for life-sustaining nutrition. S.S.’s siblings, S.I. and F.H. (plaintiffs), were devout Orthodox Jews, who believed in prolonging life. They petitioned to void the appointment of R.S. as S.S.’s healthcare proxy and to have F.H. appointed as S.S.’s guardian, arguing that R.S. was not acting in S.S.’s best interests and was motivated by concerns about treatment costs. However, they admitted that S.S. himself was not an Orthodox Jew and that they had not expressly discussed S.S.’s healthcare wishes with him. Dr. A and R.S. both testified as to the conversation occurring at the proxy’s execution as well as other similar conversations regarding S.S.’s wishes. They argued that R.S.’s decision was consistent with those wishes. The trial court considered the parties’ arguments.