When Will the State Intervene?: Life Sustaining Treatment to Children

THE STATE INTERVENES - LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENT
Student’s Name
Course
Institution Affiliation
TQ 6.1 - Rosebush v. Oakland
The case, Rosebush V. Oakland highlights how the courts struggle with the decisions parents’ make of withholding life-sustaining treatment to children. Joelle is a 12-year-old child who is able to breathe only by the use of a respirator because she was involved in an accident. The accident left Joelle in a vegetative state and hence the parents sought to stop her life support system (Schad, 2011). However, Joelle had not suffered brain death but regaining her consciousness or being able to start breathing on her own was never going to happen.
Parents have got the right to withdraw life-sustaining treatment for their minor child in situations whereby there is no medical probability of substantial recovery for such a minor. In such a situation, countervailing state interest may not carry much weight. As for the case above, the court concluded that the parents had the right to withhold life-sustaining treatment. The courts made their conclusion based on the fact that the doctor who was treating Joelle and her parent were in agreement to removing her from life support.
In addition, the injunction was dissolved on the basis that Joelle was not conscious and was not aware of her surroundings. She was never going to recover, so the court concluded that the parents were doing what was best for their child. In addition, according to the Death with Dignity Act, the courts are allowed to grand withholding of life-sustaining treatment. The Act considers the condition of the patient incurable and irreversible hence the parents were allowed to discontinue the treatment of Joelle.
Court intervention is usually necessary before a parent can refuse life-sustaining treatment for their child so as to weigh between the countervailing interests of state and the interests of the parent. The four interests that need to be assessed against the wishes of the parents are; protection of the third party, prevention of suicide, upholding of ethical standards and preservation of life.
TQ6 (2) - The matter DH
The courts understood that it was also necessary to intervene in some situations to protect the interests of the child. These situations include when the decision to withhold life-sustaining treatment is not best for the child. In a situation where, the child is fully aware and conscious but using life-sustaining treatment to survive, then the court can intervene and stop the parents from withholding the life sustaining treatment. For instance, in the case of Matter of DH, the courts stopped the parents from withholding a life-sustaining treatment form DH. They did not believe that the decision was best for DH at that moment.
Therefore, it is clear that the court checks certain factors before they determine whether withholding life-sustaining treatment for a minor was in their best interest. For instance, DH was fully aware of his surroundings and could recognize his parents every time they visited. In addition, the doctor who was attending DH objected to the decision of discontinuing the life-sustaining treatment.
In addition, the physicians added that as long as DH was responsive not experiencing pain, and was aware the treatment should not be withheld from him. Hence, after the court analyzed the facts they decided to deny the parents their request to withhold the life-sustaining treatment. Since they were not making the best decision for their son even though they made the decision at a position of love (Rehm, & Baldassarre, 2007). That is why the court rulings were different from the case of Joelle.
TQ 6 (3) - In re Fetus Brown
The factors that were considered when making a decision was the issue of religion freedom in the in the First Amendment. In addition, the courts also evaluated whether the interest of state to protect the viable fetus overrides the right of the patient to refuse treatment on religious basis. Therefore, according to the in re Fetus brown case a pregnant woman refused to get a blood transfusion since it was a violation of her religious beliefs.
In addition, the father of the fetus also was in support of the decision. The doctors treating Darlene, the mother of the fetus, told her that if she did not take the transfusion they both had a 5% chance to survive. The State went ahead to file a petition when Darlene continued to refuse the blood transfusion. This was because, the religious beliefs of Darlene had placed both her and the fetus in a very life-threatening scenario, since it was only through blood transfusion that they could both be saved. The petition was to allow temporary custody of the fetus to be given to the state (Goldblatt, 1999).
The court accepted the petition and appointed the administrator of the hospital as the temporary custodian of the fetus. Hence, the hospital received the right authorization for a blood transfusion for Darlene. However, Darlene made several efforts to resist the transfusion but was restrained and forcibly sedated and the transfusion was administered to her. After Darlene received the required treatment, she was able to deliver safely a healthy baby (Goldblatt, 1999).
Case law is not so clear when it comes to the decision made by a parent about the treatment of the child since the child is not in a capacity to know what is good or bad or what sets of beliefs govern the kind of treatment. However, the State would intervene when the interests outweighed the interest of the patients refusing treatment. The courts consider four interests when making a ruling. The factors include; life preservation, suicide preservation, third-party protection, and the ethical integrity of medical physicians. In the above case, the court focused on two factors, which are preventing life and protecting the life of a third party (Goldblatt, 1999). In addition, the court decided to balance the rights of Darlene when she refused medical treatment so she would save the viable fetus.
Discussion Questions
DQ 6 (1)
In a case such as Matter of DH, the person that should determine the removal of the life-sustaining treatment should be the courts. Since, the parents have made a decision that the doctors and the court do not agree with. The decision was not the best decision for the child at that time. According to the Louis...