Sign In
Not register? Register Now!
Essay Available:
Pages:
8 pages/≈2200 words
Sources:
5 Sources
Style:
MLA
Subject:
Law
Type:
Coursework
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 41.47
Topic:

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

Coursework Instructions:

Questions:
TQ 6.1: Rosebush v. Oakland: On what basis does the court conclude that adults have a right to refuse life-sustaining treatment? Why do parents have a right to withdraw life sustaining treatment from their minor child? When will court intervention be necessary before a parent can refuse life-sustaining treatmet for their child?
TQ 6.2: Matter of DH: Why does the court reject the recommendation of the court-appointed guardian ad litem and the hospital ethics committee? What factors does the court consider when determining whether withdrawal of life sustaining treatment is in the minor’s best interests?
TQ 6.3: In re Fetus Brown: Competent adults have the right to refuse medical treatment, but courts have balanced the right against several countervailing state interests. What factors did the court consider when weighing the pregnant woman's right to refuse medical treatment and the state’s interest in protecting the viable fetus?
Week6: Discussion Board Question
Questions:
DQ 6.1: In a case such as Matter of DH, who should make the determination that removal of life-sustaining treatment would be in the child’s best interests—parents, health care providers, or the court? Is it ethical to keep DH on a ventilator indefinitely? Should physicians defer to parents’ determination that withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is in the child’s best interests?
Week6: Discussion Board Question
Questions:
DQ 6.2: Illinois courts have held that the State cannot override a pregnant woman's decision to refuse a cesarean section or blood transfusion but, as illustrated by Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding, not all courts agree. As one court has noted, enforcement of a court-ordered cesarean would require that the pregnant woman “be fastened with restraints to the operating table or rendered unconscious by forcibly injecting her with an anesthetic and then subjected to unwanted major surgery. Such actions would surely give one pause in a civilized society especially when [the pregnant woman] had done no wrong.” Most doctors would be unwilling to forcibly subject a competent patient to an invasive procedure, and the American Medical Association has recommended against judicial intervention in these cases. Are the difficulties of enforcing such orders sufficient reason not to override a pregnant woman’s decision to reject treatment even when her decision poses a significant risk of severe injury or death to the fetus?
*** Required Reading
The following is a list of the readings
A. Life-Sustaining Treatment
- Rosebush v. Oakland (Ct App Mich. 1992)
- In the Matter of DH (NY Sup. 2007)
- McKinney's Public Health Law § 2994-e
- W. Va. Code, § 16-30C-6
B. Risk to the Fetus
- In re Fetus Brown (Ill App. 1997)
- Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding County Hospital Authority (Ga. 1981)

Coursework Sample Content Preview:

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 exper...
Updated on
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:
Order

👀 Other Visitors are Viewing These MLA Coursework Samples:

HIRE A WRITER FROM $11.95 / PAGE
ORDER WITH 15% DISCOUNT!
Order Now