In licensing of health care facilities, providing for do-not-resuscitate orders for minors.
HB720, known as Simon’s Law, would amend Pennsylvania’s Health Care Facilities Act to restrict when a health care facility, provider, or practitioner may issue or enforce a do-not-resuscitate order or otherwise withhold, withdraw, or limit life-sustaining treatment for a minor. In general, the bill requires written consent from at least one parent or legal guardian before such actions may be taken for a minor in care, and if parents or guardians disagree, the default would be to provide life-sustaining measures. The bill also allows a parent or guardian to revoke prior consent in writing.
The measure further requires providers to make a good-faith effort to contact a parent or guardian, document unsuccessful attempts, and, if contact cannot be made within 48 hours, the consent requirement does not apply. It also requires medical-record documentation of consent, revocation, and contact attempts, and it prohibits providers from interfering with a parent’s efforts to seek a second opinion or transfer the minor to another facility. The bill limits court authority by barring judicial withdrawal of life-sustaining measures over parental objection except in narrow circumstances involving clear medical evidence of destruction of the circulatory or respiratory system. It also clarifies that nothing in the bill requires medically inappropriate treatment or expands insurance coverage for services not otherwise covered.
If enacted, HB720 would add a new section to the Health Care Facilities Act governing end-of-life decisions for minors and would impose new consent, documentation, disclosure, and transfer obligations on hospitals, health care providers, and practitioners. It would also create a statutory default favoring continued life-sustaining treatment for minors when parental consent is absent or parents disagree, while preserving a limited exception when providers cannot reach a parent or guardian after a good-faith 48-hour effort. The bill would affect minors, parents and legal guardians, health care facilities, and courts, and it would take effect 60 days after enactment.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge sentiment directly. Based on the bill’s sponsorship and structure, the measure appears to be framed as a parental-rights and transparency bill intended to prevent unilateral do-not-resuscitate decisions for minors without family consent. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments in the provided materials means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from voting history, but the bill’s language suggests a strongly protective stance toward parental authority in pediatric end-of-life decisions.
The main points of contention are likely to be the balance between parental control and medical judgment, and the extent to which courts and providers may intervene in a minor’s end-of-life care. Supporters would view the bill as ensuring that parents or guardians must consent before life-sustaining treatment is withheld or a DNR is entered for a child, while critics may argue it could limit clinicians’ ability to act on professional judgment in medically futile or harmful situations. The bill tries to address that concern by preserving an exception for medically inappropriate treatment and by stating that insurers are not required to cover non-covered services, but the scope of the parental-consent requirement and the restriction on judicial intervention remain the most notable potential flashpoints.