Dennis Lindberg came into his aunt’s care when he was in the 4th grade because his parents struggled with drug addiction and could not provide for him. At thirteen, he was baptized in his aunt’s faith as a Jehovah’s Witness. Just days after he turned fourteen, on November 6, he was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

The prognosis was that Dennis had a 75% chance of cure with standard oncology treatment. Consistent with the requirements of his new faith, however, Dennis told his doctors, “I do not want to be treated if the requirement is that I would have to take a blood transfusion.” His aunt, whose custodial rights seem not to have included medical decisionmaking, was adamant that “[t]his is Dennis’s decision.”

The hospital social worker assigned to Dennis’s case assured his aunt that “having just turned 14, [he] could be considered mature enough to make his own decisions.” But hospital psychologists declined to evaluate Dennis’s maturity because they did “not have the tools for such an assessment.” Established hospital policy described the failure to provide a minor with necessary, life-saving care as medical neglect. Hospital ethicists advised that Dennis’s autonomy interests were outweighed by the benefits associated with treatment. And, standard oncology practice norms are that doctors should push back against minors’ lifesaving treatment refusals. Still, Dennis’s doctor agreed with his social worker and aunt, saying, “We owe respect to a 14-year-old[.]” In this view, he was supported by colleagues on staff and by hospital counsel.

A county judge got the case only at the eleventh hour, on an emergency motion filed by Dennis’s parents and Child Protective Services for a declaration of dependency and to compel the necessary transfusion. Although Dennis was degrading rapidly, his doctor testified that if a transfusion were ordered that day, Dennis still had a 70% chance of survival. The judge had no background in the applicable law and no time to research the issues; nevertheless, he denied the motion concluding, “It is time to do what Dennis has decided.” “Seven hours later, at 6 p.m., on Nov. 28, Dennis died.”1

丹尼斯·林德伯格（Dennis Lindberg）在 4年级时就进入了他的姑妈照顾，因为他的父母吸毒成瘾，无法养活他。十三岁时，他因姑姑的信仰受洗成为耶和华见证人。11 月 6 日，他满 14 岁后几天，被诊断出患有急性淋巴细胞白血病。

预后是丹尼斯有 75% 的机会通过标准的肿瘤治疗治愈。然而，根据他新信仰的要求，丹尼斯告诉他的医生，“如果要求我必须接受输血，我不想接受治疗。” 他的姑姑的监护权似乎不包括医疗决策，她坚持认为“这是丹尼斯的决定”。

分配给丹尼斯案件的医院社会工作者向他的姑姑保证，“他刚满 14 岁，可以被认为足够成熟，可以做出自己的决定。” 但医院心理学家拒绝评估丹尼斯的成熟度，因为他们“没有进行此类评估的工具”。既定的医院政策将未能为未成年人提供必要的、挽救生命的护理描述为医疗疏忽。医院伦理学家建议，丹尼斯的自主权利益被与治疗相关的利益所抵消。而且，标准的肿瘤学实践规范是医生应该反对未成年人拒绝接受挽救生命的治疗。尽管如此，丹尼斯的医生还是同意他的社工和阿姨的看法，他说：“我们应该尊重一个 14 岁的孩子[.]”。在这种观点下，他得到了同事和医院法律顾问的支持。

丹尼斯的父母和儿童保护服务机构提出紧急动议，要求宣布依赖关系并强制进行必要的输血，县法官在最后一刻才收到此案。尽管丹尼斯的病情正在迅速恶化，但他的医生作证说，如果当天下令输血，丹尼斯仍有 70% 的生存机会。法官没有适用法律的背景，也没有时间研究这些问题；然而，他否认了这项动议，结论是：“是时候按照丹尼斯的决定去做了。” “七个小时后，即 11 月 28 日下午 6 点，丹尼斯去世了。” 1