## Facts

- Jerry Strunk, age 27, was legally incompetent, institutionalized, and had severe intellectual disability and a significant speech defect.
- Jerry’s brother, Tommy Strunk, age 28, had a fatal kidney disease and could not survive much longer without a kidney transplant.
- Physicians tested family members as possible donors; none were compatible until Jerry was tested and found to be highly acceptable.
- Jerry was emotionally and psychologically dependent on Tommy, who functioned as his primary familial support.
- Jerry’s mother, acting as Jerry’s committee, petitioned the county court to authorize removal of one of Jerry’s healthy kidneys for transplantation into Tommy.
- The county court found the transplant medically necessary for Tommy and, based on testimony including from medical and mental-health professionals, concluded the procedure would be in Jerry’s best interests because the psychological harm to Jerry from Tommy’s death would exceed the risks of nephrectomy.

## Issues

1. Whether a court of equity may authorize removal of a healthy kidney from an incompetent ward, on petition of the ward’s committee, for transplantation to the ward’s dying sibling.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the authorization for the transplant.
- The court held that equity courts possess inherent *parens patriae* authority to act for an incompetent ward’s personal welfare, including consenting to medical procedures the ward cannot consent to.
- The court accepted the lower courts’ finding that, on substantial evidence, the kidney donation served Jerry’s best interests due to the expected psychological and emotional benefit of preserving Tommy’s life.

## Legal Principles

- A court of equity, acting under *parens patriae*, may make personal-welfare decisions for an incompetent ward beyond mere property management.
- Lack of express statutory authorization does not eliminate equitable authority to approve a medical procedure for an incompetent ward when necessary to protect the ward’s welfare and not prohibited by law.
- Non-therapeutic organ removal from an incompetent may be approved when supported by substantial evidence that the procedure is in the incompetent’s best interests, including emotional and psychological welfare, and the medical risks are comparatively limited.

## Conclusion

The court permitted a kidney transplant from an incompetent ward to his dying brother because equity’s *parens patriae* power allowed consent on the ward’s behalf, and the evidence supported a finding that the donation served the ward’s own best interests by avoiding severe psychological harm from the sibling’s death.


Strunk v. Strunk, 445 S.W.2d 145 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969)