Parents sue hospital for saving their child's life

I would side with the hospital on this one. I think they are somewhat obligated to do whatever they can to save a childs life. I mean the parents were warned of the possible side effects of saving the childs life, but they still wanted the hospital to try (without any "heroic measures"). Now that the childs life has been saved the parents want compensation for it? I think that's wrong. By the sonds of it, they didn't try to be heroes or anything like that, they just did what they could to save a little girls life.

I think this quote is interesting:

"This case is not about mercy killing," said Sidney's father, Mark Miller. "This is a simple consent case in which the hospital tried to play God while not understanding that role has already been filled."

Who exactly has filled that role? The parents? And I don't think they were neccessarily trying to play God, but doing what they could to preserve a life. Let's just say the hospital staff didn't save the childs life, would the parents try and get compensation for neglect or something like that?

On a somewhat related topic, what is everyone's views on euthanasia? Cause this sounds like it may have been a case not so much for euthanasia, but like the article said a mercy kiling (which I guess is a similar thing).

 

This is interesting. In both cases of my grandfather and my grandmother, our family was allowed to place a DNR (Do Not Recessitate) order in their files. Knowing that they were suffering and forcing them to live would continue their suffering (and we knew they did not want to live that way) because they would be invalids helped make the decision easy.

However, with my grandfather, the heart surgeon who operated on him was adamant that we put him through difficult and even painful treatments to keep him alive as long as possible. The other doctors said that heart surgeon's get their egos bruised very easily when their patients die. They take it personally. Obviously, my grandfather's way of life was important to us because we knew him to be someone who would NEVER want to live as an invalid. He even stipulated it prior to surgery.

One thing I wonder here is how liable is the hospital for all the bills the parents have incurred? I mean, they continued to keep the child alive but now the parents are saddled with the bills for the rest of the child's life. It is one thing to keep the child alive, but wouldn't they be at least partially responsible since they were the one's that insisted on doing all the additional procedures despite the parents' protests?

 

Seems to me the legislature already decided this...I would hate to see the courts trump them.

The legislature in Texas (as in other states) has written up DNR orders, medical powers of attorney and living wills (directives to physicians). These documents either mean what the legislature intended for them to mean, or they are worthless.

These people possibly visited an attorney who assisted in the preparation of a DNR order. At the very least, they relied on the legislature and took the option of saying that they did not want the baby to receive treatment given what they knew. This is in no way a mercy killing....in those situations, the life is sustainable on its own accord without resuscitation...not so in this case. Here, the hospital ignored the very documents they originally accepted...documents authorized for use by the very legislature which governs the state. Pretty clear issue to me...you can cloud it up wih talk about mercy killings (which really aren't even analgous) or euthanasia, but it is simply about the hospital actively choosing to ignore these legal documents executed by the parents of the child...documents they had every right in the world to execute.

I am entirely fuzzy on what the appeals court opinion was about ...they said the parents' wishes could only be granted if the condition was terminal...isn't that exactly what the hospital is stipulating and the parents are alleging?? if it wasn't terminal, why were they sustaining her with oxygen?? Either way, the hospital was on record before birth saying resuscitation could result in suffering for the child. They knew the risk...they knew the parents' wishes...they acted on their own accord...and according to the trial court/jury, they were responsible for that suffering.

All ethics aside....either the DNR orders mean what they're say, or they are worthless...it's that simple. These people relied on the legislature and the hospital that such an order was legal and enforceable. The hospital ignored it...now you want to change the law and make it apply ex post facto to these people??? If you don't like DNR orders, fine...get rid of them...but to say the hospital has the right to disregard them takes away all their power, because every hospital would almost be forced to disregard them at that point for fear of liability. And to apply that new rule to these people who executed their DNR with a good faith belief it would be enforced is unjust, in my opinion.

 

Wow, Max are you an attorney or something

I see what you are saying, legally the hospital had to abide by the parents wishes to not resusitate the child. As a result legally the hospital is responsible for what has happened, and ultimately that's what it comes down to. Having said that, ethically I think the hospital did the right thing. Although since I posted this morning, I am seeing the parents side of this a bit better now.

 

This is the part that got me:

<b>"This case is not about mercy killing," said Sidney's father, Mark Miller. "This is a simple consent case in which the hospital tried to play God while not understanding that role has already been filled."
</b>

HELLO, aren't the parents playing God by telling the doctors not to treat their child and possibly having the child die?

 

RocksMill: Thats the exact same thing I thought when I first read it. Knee-jerk reaction was that the hospital/doctors have responsibility to do whatever they can to save the childs life.

 

No...not exactly...

first off, the parents have the right to do this in this situation. the life was not sustainable without these machines and procedures working for it. we all have the ability to sign papers that say we do not wish to be kept alive that way (they're called directives to physicians)...but in the case of a child or someone without the mental capacity to make that decision, the decision is made by parents or guardian. I would rather have those people making the decision than hospitals and doctors blindly following their oath...apparently the legislature agrees with me because they've specifically set it up for it to be that way.

the hospital informed these parents of the risks associated with treatment...they were given the choice...they made the choice, and the doctors subsequently ignored it. it's really that simple. the hospital can't say after the fact, "yeah, well your decision means nothing," because according to the law, it does mean something...in fact, it means everything!

 

But isn't there a big difference between taking somebody off a machine who is basically a vegetable? I understand legally they can do this, legislation isn't the problem, what about morally? They're ripping the hospital for "playing God", when they're doing the same thing by telling the hospital to let their child die just because they don't think she would recover if resuscitated. There's a difference between taking somebody off a machine, and actually having a child be born and ordering the hospital to let them die. You're telling people, who are trained to save lives, to suddenly let someone die? That's akin to mercy killing, something that hospitals that have nurses or doctors who do things like that are ripped for.

 

wait a second, though...it's not simply that, "if you take off the machines she'll die." it's also the hospital telling them way ahead of time, "hey, if we try to use these procedures on here, it could greatly increase her suffering!" What in the hell is a parent supposed to do at that point??? That's why the legislature leaves the choice up to the individuals confronted with it...the ones who have to live with it.

Quite honestly, I don't see the difference...either way, a life is being sustained by artificial means. The hospital said up front, "if we do this, she will likely suffer more."

They're ripping the hospital for playing God...someone has to play God....the state says the parents/guardians are the best ones to do that...there are great policy reasons for having those individuals be the ones to make that call...they're the ones with emotions invested...they're the ones who watch their daughter suffer daily...they're the parents and parents make decisions regarding medical procedures on their kids every day. The hospital should be ripped for playing God...for asserting its will beyond that which the law allows....beyond the parents' will, and against their wishes.

As Jeff said, you generally file these things with the hospital when you check in...some even ask if you have them. When you execute a document like that, you expect it to be honored. It wasn't. There's your liability.

 

Not knowing the intricacies of the laws involved, I would have to side with the doctors here. For one, this:

The hospital, however, concluded that its policy and state and federal laws required attempts to resuscitate babies born weighing 500 grams or more, or about 18 ounces. An ultrasound indicated Sidney weighed 629 grams.

makes it seem like the doctors would have been liable had they let the child die as well.

Hospital officials say the disabilities resulted from severe internal injuries unrelated to the resuscitation.

If this is true, then some of these injuries were not foreseeable either, so the hospital shouldn't be liable for that part of it. Ultimately, though, I just have to think what the right thing is. If there's any question about it, it seems that the right thing is to choose life over death. This doesn't seem like something that they had days or weeks to decide on like a terminally ill patient. I assume they had to make an instant decision, and I can't fault them for picking to save the child.

 

Major -

But the problem is, it's not their decision to make! The decision was made by the parents in a DNR. I'm guessing this was filed with the hospital long before the woman ever went into labor, knowing this was a problem pregnancy.

Whether or not some of the injuries were unforeseeable is irrelevant...they said upfront that taking this action could cause suffering. The child was born without lungs!! It was unsustainable on its own...so the question is posed to the parents/guardians, "what do you want to do about this?" Then the decision was snatched away from them...yet they're forced to live with the financial consequences of a course of action chosen for them by someone else.

Again...either a DNR order means what it says or it's absolutely worthless...and in that case, is a directive to physicians equally worthless...how about a medical power of attorney?? If hospitals can simply overlook these legal documents, then the hospitals themselves are overturning legislation.

 

MadMax --

What about this part?

The hospital, however, concluded that its policy and state and federal laws required attempts to resuscitate babies born weighing 500 grams or more, or about 18 ounces. An ultrasound indicated Sidney weighed 629 grams.

Do we know if these laws supersede a DNR order? The hospital appears to think it didn't (at least the way I'm reading this).

Also, what about this:

The verdict was overturned by an appeals court, which said the parents could have refused treatment only if the baby's condition had been terminal.

Are DNR orders only acceptable in terminally ill patients? If so, is it applicable in this case? This child is certainly severely disabled, but is she considered terminally ill?

 

I hate statements like these. It seems to imply that humans have somehow usurped God's powers. If God didn't want us to have the capacity to do such, then we would not.

MadMax:

While I respect the decisions of parents in cases like these... I think it runs perilously close to abortion... so I would have thought it would have bothered you.

There's a distinction between not doing what's possible to help and doing harm... but it's a slim one, imo. If you see a man hanging by a tuft of grass to a cliff, and you do not help him, even though you could... does it make you a murderer?


I think it probably does.

 

For me, it still comes right back to who takes care of the child. If the parents stated that the suffering of the child outweighs the life, the parents have a right to make that decision. If the doctors ignore that decision for ANY reason, they must have some degree of responsibility for the child's subsequent health-related problems.

Disobeying a parents order and then saying, "Well, here you go. Good luck and you'll be getting our bill in the mail" is as unethical as it gets. Sometimes, just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.

 

I'm with the parents on this one...I'll just let MadMax and Jeff argue for me-they do a better job.

 

SHE WAS BORN WITHOUT LUNGS!!!! She can not live without machines!! I do not see the same implications as abortion. People are forced to make these decisions everyday in hospitals across America...here the decision was not honored.
Again...DNR orders either mean what they say are they are worthless...and I don't think it should be up to the hospital to decide!

Major --

I don't know anything about that law...

The appellate court verdict was surprising (as I posted in another post on this very thread)...here's why:

1. could have refused treatment only if the baby's condition was terminal..how is being born without lungs NOT terminal??? I truly don't understand this. Seems to me they knew from the beginning her condition was terminal....but sometimes that's the problem with newspaper journalists trying to write stories on court opinions..they simply don't understand them fully.

2. an appeals court is not supposed to make decisions as to the facts of the case...the best evidence as to the facts is to be left to a jury (or a judge in a bench trial) because they're actually seeing the evidence presented in court. appellate courts look primarily at application of the law...was the law applied properly in the court below?? so the appellate court making findings on whether or not the baby's condition was terminal or not is surprising to me...but maybe i'm reading this wrong in the context of this article...or maybe it wasn't written completely.

Again..it boils down to this...the legislature allows us to make choices as to whether or not we want to be resuscitated...whether or not we want to be kept on machinery to keep us alive unnaturally. The hospital trumped the parents' right to choose that for their child. If the courts allow this, you can kiss DNR orders goodbye completely....they won't be worth the paper they're printed on. I think that's ridiculous that the hospital gets to determine whether or not I live, if I make the choice to not be sustained by machinery. Right now, I have a living will...I'd like it to be enforced if, God forbid, something like that happens.

 

Again..it boils down to this...the legislature allows us to make choices as to whether or not we want to be resuscitated...

But this isn't true. Parents are given that choice within certain limits. For example, the law on the weight on the baby and the restrictions to terminally ill patients.

As for the terminally ill issue, the baby wasn't born without lungs. It was born without fully developed lungs. I don't know enough about biology, but its possible that those lungs would develop over time. The doctors have stated that the disabilities the child has were not related to the resuscitation. If that's the case, then the child may or may not have been terminally ill when the doctors were forced to make their decision.

Ultimately, it appears they had conflicting laws to deal with, and its hard for me to fault the doctors for picking one to follow.

 

It doesn't seem like you'd be able to grow fully developed lungs after you were born.

Of course, I know crap about biology, so there's a good chance I could be very wrong.

 

But if the jury determined this was a fatal condition (something they would have to have decided after expert testimony) that decision should stand...so why does an appellate court seek to overturn that finding of fact??

Yes..the doctors contend that their attempts didn't cause the problem...the plaintiffs allege that they did...that's a finding of fact issue for the jury...the jury decided that issue in favor of the plaintiffs...they heard the experts and made their decision...case closed on that issue. At this point that's nothing more than fodder for a newspaper article. The hospital can allege whatever it wants at this point...the time for fact finding is over.

Yes..you're right, it's within certain limitations...I can say I've never seen or read the law regarding the baby's weight...and quite frankly, I don't understand the policy reasons for that law.

Again, Jeff's point is crucial...we are the parents...we made the decision we were legally authorized to make...you chose to override that decision...you can't simply walk away from that decision with no liability.

I'm colored by the fact that hospitals are ridiculously silly in choosing to not honor these agreements in situations far less tenuous than these...so my opinion is ultimately colored by that experience.