Life-sustaining treatment for unemancipated minor patients provided.
HF4568, titled “Simon’s Law,” creates a new section in Minnesota Statutes governing orders not to resuscitate and other life-sustaining treatment decisions for unemancipated minors. The bill requires that before a hospital or health care facility may enter a DNR, DNAR, AND, or similar order for a minor patient, at least one parent or legal guardian must be notified orally and in writing, and reasonable efforts must be made to notify any other available parent or guardian with custodial or visitation rights. Unless the parent or guardian agrees, the order generally cannot take effect until 48 hours after notice, and the notification and any attempts to contact other guardians must be documented in the medical record.
The bill also creates a transfer process if a parent or guardian objects. Within 48 hours of notice, a parent or guardian may request transfer or discharge, and the facility must continue life-sustaining treatment and artificial nutrition and hydration for at least 15 days while assisting with the transfer, unless a transfer cannot be arranged in that time. The bill preserves a parent or guardian’s ability to revoke prior consent, limits court authority to order withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment over parental objection except in cases of irreversible death, and gives special rules for children under juvenile court jurisdiction and for relative caregivers. It also includes mandatory reporting requirements for violations, potential professional discipline, a private cause of action for certain family members, and a severability clause.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to add a detailed parental-notice and objection framework for end-of-life decisions involving minors in hospitals, residential facilities, physician offices, and abortion facilities. It would affect health care providers, facility administrators, parents and legal guardians, relative caregivers, courts, and licensing boards by restricting when life-ending or life-sustaining-treatment-withholding orders may be implemented and by creating enforcement mechanisms for noncompliance. It also expressly states that nothing in the section requires medically inappropriate treatment to continue, preserving provider discretion where treatment would be harmful or futile.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from legislative debate or roll-call history. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly protective of parental rights and continued treatment for minors, while still acknowledging medical judgment limits. The structure and enforcement provisions suggest the bill is intended to prevent unilateral end-of-life decisions for children without family notice and involvement.
The main points of contention likely concern the balance between parental authority and physician judgment, especially in urgent or medically complex cases. Supporters would likely emphasize notice, transparency, transfer rights, and the presumption that continued life is in the child’s best interest. Critics may focus on the bill’s restrictions on clinicians and courts, the mandatory reporting and liability provisions, and whether the 48-hour and 15-day timelines could delay medically appropriate end-of-life decisions or complicate care in emergency settings.
HF4568 would add Minnesota Statutes section 144.609, creating a new legal framework for do-not-resuscitate and other life-sustaining-treatment orders for unemancipated minors. It would require parental or guardian notice, impose waiting periods and transfer rights, limit court-ordered withdrawal of treatment, authorize reporting and professional discipline for violations, and create a private cause of action for certain family members. The bill would directly affect hospitals, health care facilities, physicians, nurses, residential facilities, and families of minor patients, while preserving provider discretion not to continue medically inappropriate treatment.
No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so there is no documented legislative sentiment to summarize from discussion or roll call. The bill text itself reflects a clear policy preference for parental notification and continued treatment for minors, suggesting a pro-family, pro-parental-rights orientation. At the same time, it preserves some medical-judgment exceptions, indicating an attempt to balance family control with clinical discretion.
The likely central controversy is whether the bill appropriately protects parents and guardians or instead interferes with physicians’ ability to make urgent end-of-life decisions for minors. Supporters would favor the notice requirement, 48-hour delay, 15-day transfer window, and limits on court authority as safeguards against unilateral withdrawal of treatment. Opponents may argue that these provisions could delay medically appropriate care, increase legal exposure for providers, and create conflicts in cases involving severe injury, terminal illness, or disputed best-interest determinations. The bill also raises potential concern over mandatory reporting, license discipline, and the private right of action.