Unbelievable that it went this far:
A doctor can’t be held liable for resuscitating a baby who was born without a heartbeat and survived with severe disabilities, the state Supreme Court says.The baby’s parents filed a malpractice lawsuit after the baby’s 2004 birth. They claimed doctors in Vancouver, Wash., were negligent when they continued to resuscitate the baby for almost half an hour, after he was born without a heartbeat.
The parents also said the medical team should have gotten their consent before continuing to revive the baby.
(via Overlawyered)
Related posts:
- Treating the Dead: The Science of Resuscitation
- The baby who can’t be hugged
- The Ashley Treatment
- Treating the dead
- Should extremely premature babies be resuscitated?
- The Year of the Pig is causing a baby boom in China
- "Choosing a higher-paying career in a subspecialty is an obvious choice"
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
And why, pray tell, is that unbelievable? Haven’t we seen enough “wrongful life” cases already, and in what manner does this case differ from the mother of a child with Down’s syndrome suing her obstetrician?
I can’t Believe that they wouldnt want the doctor to try and revive their child unless they just didnt want to deal with the situation entirely. As a mother who has lost a child shortly after the birth I wish they could have done more. I commend the doctor for caring enough about the childs life to want to revive the child.
Comments on this entry are closed.