The child is in need of a kidney surgery, but the mother wanted to find “other options”:
The case of a mother who took her 9-month-old child on the lam, frantically searching for alternative therapies as state and medical authorities demanded kidney surgery for the boy, unfolded before the public last week like a high-drama television show. But at bottom, it pitted the rights of a mother and father against the power of the state.
Related posts:
- An abortion fails, mother sues doctors for costs to raise her child
- Child mauled by a pit bull, but the ER sends the kid home
- A nursing mother wants extra exam time
- Surprise! Medicine on TV is often inaccurate
- Alternative therapy
- Adoption on condition of gastric bypass surgery
- When you’re wrong about child abuse
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
The center of the conflict is the child. The child cannot express his interests in selecting the best therapy to meet his future goals and wishes, so some surrogate must do this for him.
The word right or rights throughout the article is discussed only in regards to the mother. Nowhere are the rights of the child explicitly mentioned. We grant competent adults the right to make all sorts of choices, some of which might generally be considered foolish or downright stupid; but this child was not wishing to make a poor choice, but he was in danger of having a poor choice made for him. Mother could have taken time to explore options, such as might exists, but she needs to communicate effectively with her child’s doctors and the courts. She needed to be willing to agree to a timetable of some finite ’search’ for options, to be followed by surgery if no better options are found. Instead it seems she decided to throw up an obstinate wall rather than present herself as a reasonable decision maker who could be charged with the welfare of a child.
Comments on this entry are closed.