Who has rights over a child's treatment?

I don't know British law, but it seems to me this is something a judge could help with. Let the dr's and parents make their case, and let an impartial judge decide who gets to make the decision based on the evidence of what's best for the child. I would say, most of the time parents should decide, but there are times parents are being abusive or neglectful and so a concerned doctor should have the right to challenge it. But it should not be all one way or the other.

Reply

Well, this is an article from the tabloid the Daily Mail, which makes me take it with a grain of salt. I think their articles are designed to evoke emotion and they overplay or downplay some facts to get the emotional response. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

The fact is, in this case the father did consent to treatment. Yes, he did so after the doctor threatened to go to Child Protective Services, but the fact is that it never went to court and one doesn't know that the court wouldn't have sided with the child.

As sad as these cases are, I don't think there is any one form of legislation that could cover all the possibilities, which is why it is probably better for courts to decide each case on its individual merits.

Reply

I think the doctors are completely off-base here. Why not sit down with the parents first, and discuss the options? If he truly does think that *this* course is going to do the trick (where the other two or three did not), perhaps he can show them why, and change their (and their daughter's) minds. Perhaps he's using a different drug, or dose, or whatever. But to immediately run to Child Protective Services is ridiculous. Unfortunately, it seems as though the law is on the side of the medical community in this one, and emjaybee's suggestion of bringing a judge in, while a good one, probably wouldn't matter.

Think about this poor kid the next time you take up a crusade for Universal (Socialized) Healthcare. Because this is what it's all about. If you're healthy, fine. If not, look out.

Reply

I agree with many of the sentiments that have been expressed here. A human's body should be treated with dignity, regardless of the scientific motivation to try everything however physically and emotionally painful.

I have to comment that if the patient's or her parents' objection had anything to do with religion, many of the commenters would have denied the rights of the child or the parents to make a decision. But religious identity is just as important to human dignity as the other aspects that concern the blogger and the above posters. I think it's sad that the minute we bring religion into anything, a lot of people are prepared to scoff. It should be the other way around: religious rights should be protected from intervention by any entity connected to the government, including child services, courts, etc.

Reply

LS, this story has nothing to do with Universal Healthcare. Universal Healthcare does not mean that you lose the right to refuse treatment. Having had a critically ill child and having been forced to contemplate the effects of various treatments and what I would and would not allow in the name of "quality of life" I can say with absolute authority that parents, and patients, do have rights in these situations.

I can also say with absolute authority that had my child become ill under a health care system like yours instead of in Canada, at best I would be financially crippled for the rest of my life. At worst, my vibrant, healthy 3 year old daughter would be 2 years in her grave instead of 2 years tumour free.

Reply

Have you ever read "My Sister's Keeper" by Jodi Picoult? It deals with this same type of issue in a roundabout way. Gripping book.

Reply