Informed Consent, and Parent Consent Regarding Abortion and HPV Vaccine

Week 7
TQ 7.1. Stewart-Graves v. Vaughn
The basis of the informed consent claim was because the doctrine of informed consent states that a medical professional has the fiduciary obligation to inform the patient or their guardians of their condition and the treatment to be employed, allowing them to make an informed decision about the care. In this case, Dr. Vaughn failed to inform Liam’s father of the resuscitation efforts beyond ten minutes, denying him the right to decide whether it should continue or not (Stewart-Graves v. Vaughn, 2007).
The standard of care claim was founded on the argument that the health care team treating Liam should have stopped resuscitation efforts after ten minutes when medical research indicates that an infant can survive without severe disability. Also, involving Liam’s parents in deciding to continue with the resuscitation efforts past ten minutes was vital, to give them a say, considering they would be caring for a severely brain-damaged child (Stewart-Graves v. Vaughn, 2007).
The court rejected the informed consent claim based on the argument that a medical professional can act without consent to prevent the harm of a patient in an emergency. Further, the court observed that in an emergency such as in Liam’s case, having a long and detailed consent discussion was impractical and less important than maintaining the doctor’s focus to offer the life-saving treatment. The court rejected the standard of care claim because, as per the Miller, 118 S.W.3d 758; Montalvo v. Borkovec, 256 Wis.2d 472, 647 N.W.2d 413, 420 (2002) case, parents have no right to deny a newborn medical treatment even when it results in severe disability (Stewart-Graves v. Vaughn, 2007).
The case did not satisfy the establishment of an injury as Liam was not terminally ill or born with disabilities directly caused by the doctor’s actions or the health facility in question. Also, the standard of care claim could not sufficiently establish a violation of Liam’s rights, as he has a right to life-saving medical care.
TQ 7.2: Newmark v. Williams
The Newmarks refused their son to undergo chemotherapy so he could undergo spiritual aid and prayer as an adequate treatment alternative offered by the First Church of Christ, Scientist, to which they belonged.
The court applied the Delaware statutory provision § 902 of Title 16. 10 Del.C. § 901(11), to establish whether Colin’s physical, mental, or emotional health was threatened due to inadequate care and protection by his parents, who are financially and ably capable of offering care to him. The second standard was the effectiveness of the treatment prescribed and its effects on him. The third standard was the defendant’s parental rights and the child’s right to human dignity in the limited time left compared to the miserable medical treatment the child would endure. Additionally, it had to establish the parents’ right to decline medical treatment for a child for religious reasons (Newmark v. Williams, 1991).
In assessing Collin’s best interests, the court took into account that Collins was not an abused child as he was under spiritual treatment from a recognized church accredited by the law according ...