Bartling vs. Superior There are many health care cases that are going on in the world. The Bartling vs. Superior case occurred around November 6, 1984 when William Bartling expired. Bartling had been suffering from pulmonary emphysema, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, coronary arteriosclerosis, abdominal aneurysm, and lung cancer. The patient was forced to use a ventilator against his wishes. A ventilator was needed to help him breathe or he would have not lived as long as he had. The ventilator was attached by a tracheostomy. “Mr. Bartling entered Glendale Adventist on April 8, 1984, for treatment of his depression. A routine physical examination, including a chest X-ray, was performed, and a tumor was discovered on Mr. Bartling's lung.” (LexisNexis, 1994.) There was a biopsy performed by inserting a needle into the left lung, which caused the lung to collapse. The physicians had to insert tubing through his chest and nasal passage to try and inflate. The lung was unsuccessful in being inflated due to the fact that the patient had previous history of emphysema. By this time, Mr. Bartling is put on a ventilator to keep him alive. The patient asked multiple times to have the ventilator removed but the facility denied his request. He also had tried taking the ventilator out himself. The facility then had to restraint Bartling from hurting himself even more. The patient’s wife and daughter had brought in William’s living will and his wishes. In his will it stated, "If at such time the situation should arise in which there is no reasonable expectation of my recovery from extreme physical or mental disability, I direct that I be allowed to die and not be kept alive by medications, artificial means or heroic measures." (LexisNexis, 1994.) The patient felt as if he was not truly living and a machine was doing the work for him. In this case I feel that the court should have granted his wishes. In the documentation it shows that he does understand his rights and the consequences of what could have happened. I agree that the hospital did have the right to connect the ventilator. The patient did need it in order to survive as long as he did. However, when William Bartling started to realize that he would not be “weaned” off the device he should have had the device removed. Bartling’s wife and daughter also understood what their loved one wanted. If I was the patient’s wife I would not really know what to think. The roughest part for me would know what my loved one wanted and them not being able to have that. The petition was dismissed because the patient died before the court had time to review the case. I would like to have known if the patient was still alive how the outcome would have been. In future cases similar to this one, the patient should be told their rights and a living will should be more than enough consent.

References
Bartling Vs. Superior. (1994, January 27). Retrieved August 26, 2013, from LexisNexis website: http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.rasmussen.edu/ hottopics/lnacademic/