Each time she has been provided with breathing assistance and, after stabilization, has been discharged to the nursing home. Difficulty breathing at birth- placed on ventilator. Impasse continued- legal resolution needed. It seems manifest to us that the stabilization requirement was intended to regulate the hospital's care of the patient only in the immediate aftermath of the act of admitting her for emergency treatment and while it considered whether it would undertake longer-term full treatment or instead transfer the patient to a hospital that could and would undertake that treatment. Such babies have no cerebrum or cerebellum but they do have a brain stem. The Hospital has been unable to identify, nor has our research revealed, any statutory language or legislative history evincing a Congressional intent to create an exception to the duty to provide stabilizing treatment when the required treatment would exceed the prevailing standard of medical care. H failed to reach an agreement as to the appropriate care.
In November of 1992, when Baby K no longer needed the services of an acute-care hospital, she was transferred to a nearby nursing home. H contested the Hospital's request for declaratory relief. How is this problematic when dealing with anencephalic newborns? She lived for ten days; but when she died her organs could not be transplanted. It cannot plausibly be interpreted to regulate medical and ethical decisions outside that narrow context. This article explores the nature of professional nurses' claims of violations of their integrity, argues for a broader moral framework for examining such dilemmas, and suggests strategies for addressing these issues in the clinical setting. Throughout which, Ms H continued to seek more aggressive care for Baby K.
Do you think this is an appropriate use of the money? The brain stem allows them to breathe and allows their hearts to beat. The case touched off a legal and ethical firestorm. Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again. Because aggressive treatment would serve no therapeutic or palliative purpose, they recommended that Baby K only be provided with supportive care in the form of nutrition, hydration, and warmth. Relying on the decisions of this court in Baber v. K, joined in the Hospital's request for a declaration that the Hospital is not required to provide respiratory support or other aggressive treatments.
H requests a transfer or the Hospital obtains a certification that the benefits of a transfer would outweigh the risks involved, and all of the requirements for an appropriate transfer are met, then the Hospital could, of course, transfer Baby K to another qualified medical facility prior to stabilization It is not clear from the record whether the movement of Baby K from the nursing home to the Hospital constitutes a discharge from the nursing home and presentation at the emergency department of the Hospital or a transfer to the Hospital. The Hospital does not allege that it would refuse to provide respiratory support to infants experiencing bradypnea or apnea who do not have anencephaly. Therefore, the Virginia legislature presumably did not intend Sec. An appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court resulted in a 3-1 vote to let Baby Doe die. Its core purpose is to get patients into the system who might otherwise go untreated and be left without a remedy because traditional medical malpractice law affords no claim for failure to treat. Baby Doe Case: A Life Not Worth Living? Baby K was born on October 13, 1992, at Fairfax Hospital in Virginia. Bronson Health Care Group, Inc.
Caring for Baby K, an infant born with anencephaly, created moral distress and violated the integrity of some nurses. In an article in the Chicago Tribune, the doctor implied his experience with family members who have a child with disabilities influenced his views that Baby's Doe life wasn't valuable. Houstan, Texas: Army - Baylor University Graduate Program in Health and Business Administration Army Medical Department Center and School. Symptoms: Permanently unconscious Cannot hear or see Lacking cerebral function, therefore cannot feel pain. Indeed, a refusal to provide such treatment would likely be considered as providing no emergency medical treatment. Baby K was born at the Hospital in October of 1992 with anencephaly, a congenital malformation in which a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp are missing.
She cannot see, hear, or otherwise interact with her environment. Despite those efforts, Baby Doe died due to disturbing complications on April 15, six days after birth. God, not other humans should decide the moment of her daughter's death. We are bound to interpret federal statutes in accordance with their plain language and any expressed congressional intent. Dole ; see also Brooker v. Even if the surgery was not an option, Baby Doe was still capable of receiving food and water intravenously.
The hospital brought the case before a judge, who ruled that the parents had the right to decide between treatment options, including the option that provided no actual treatment. United States, , 250-51, 46 S. Position Two: Hospital General acute care hospital, pediatric intensive care department. She was twice readmitted and after her subsidiary medical condition was stabilized, transferred back to a nursing home. She fought the hospital, the doctors, and even the baby's father to whom she was never married to continue aggressive treatment for Baby K, despite the futility of the treatment. Every time Baby K stopped breathing, her mother would rush her back to Fairfax Hospital to be resuscitated and put on a respirator.
H objects to the transfer of Baby K, since the Hospital has not obtained a certification that the benefits of a transfer would outweigh the medical risks involved, and since no qualified medical facility has agreed to accept Baby K, the requirements for transfer prior to stabilization have not been met. Not all parents who have an anencephalic fetus choose abortion. Thereafter, without physician intervention, the patient died. In September 1996, the Fourth Circuit had occasion to revisit the issue in a somewhat different context, and issued a decision which puts limits on what appeared in 1994 to be an ongoing and interminable duty to continue to provide treatment. This attempt failed when all of the hospitals in the area with pediatric intensive care units declined to accept the infant. The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics. In the absence of a statutory definition for this term, we concluded that it should be defined as requiring participating hospitals to apply uniform screening procedures to all individuals coming to the emergency room of the hospital requesting treatment.