Helga Wanglie

Helga Wanglie

Name	Helga Wanglie
Birth name
Birth date	1915
Birth place
Death date	1991
Death place
Alma mater
Occupation
Years active
Organization
Known for	Legal case on life support and medical ethics
Notable works
Spouse(s)
Website

Helga Wanglie (1915 – 1991) was an American woman who became the center of a landmark legal case concerning medical ethics, end-of-life care, and the right to refuse or continue life-sustaining treatment. Her case is often cited in discussions about patient autonomy and the role of healthcare providers in making decisions about life support.

Background

Helga Wanglie was a resident of Minnesota, USA. In 1990, at the age of 85, she suffered a severe respiratory failure and was admitted to the hospital. She was placed on a mechanical ventilator and other life-sustaining treatments. Despite her critical condition, her husband, Oliver Wanglie, insisted that she would have wanted to continue receiving life support.

The Legal Case

The case of Helga Wanglie became a significant legal battle when the hospital, Hennepin County Medical Center, sought to discontinue life support, arguing that it was medically futile. The hospital petitioned the court to appoint a guardian who could make decisions in Helga's best interest, as they believed continuing treatment was not beneficial.

Court Proceedings

The case was brought before the Hennepin County District Court in 1991. The court had to consider whether the hospital had the right to withdraw life support against the wishes of the patient's family. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Helga Wanglie's family, allowing them to continue life support based on their understanding of her wishes.

Ethical Implications

The Helga Wanglie case raised important questions about medical futility, the limits of patient autonomy, and the ethical responsibilities of healthcare providers. It highlighted the tension between respecting a patient's or family's wishes and the medical judgment of healthcare professionals.

Impact on Medical Ethics

The case is frequently referenced in discussions about advance directives, living wills, and the importance of clear communication between patients, families, and healthcare providers. It underscores the need for policies that address conflicts between medical recommendations and patient or family desires.

Also see

• Medical ethics
• End-of-life care
• Patient autonomy
• Advance directive
• Living will
• Medical futility