Ethical Dilemma on Baby Boy Doe's Case

,
Ethical Dilemma Baby Boy Doe
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Ethical Dilemma Baby Boy Doe
In medical practice, cases of ethical dilemmas are frequent. On various occasions, health professionals undergo difficulties marked by a clash of individual rights, societal expectations, legal regulations, expected therapeutic interventions, personal perceptions, and institutional practices. The mix of these conflicting factors presents fertile grounds for ethical dilemmas. Baby Boy Doe case is an example of a moral dilemma. This dilemma reflects an ethical situation of whether or not to treat a child with disabilities. The case presents thought-provoking decisions and options to ponder about. Is it necessary to medically intervene in children with disabilities considering the cost implications and overall burden to the family and society? Does the child with disabilities have inalienable rights regarding access to life-saving health interventions?
In some instances, children born with disabilities have been denied life-saving interventions like surgeries. The decision to refuse treatment has been arrived at by the child’s parents or in conjunction with doctors while citing cost implications and emotional trouble associated with treatment and raising of such a child. The Indiana Baby Doe was born in Indiana with Down syndrome and a tracheoesophageal fistula. The upper section of Baby Doe’s esophagus lacks adequate continuity to the lower part (Darr,2011). The surgery was the primary intervention that demonstrated the significant potential for success. In the absence of treatment, the prognosis is of Baby Doe’s life was extremely poor. The doctor advised the parents against offering care to Baby Boy Doe due to perceived poor prognosis associated with Down syndrome. The doctor and the parents believed that such a child with Down syndrome would not have a quality life even if the surgical intervention could be successful. Thus, the consensus between the Baby Doe’s parent and the doctor agreed not to authorize surgery, water, and food for the child, which led to the baby’s death. Based on this decision, the nurses instituted legal proceedings against a decision to deny the child's necessary care. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that the parents did not violate any right by following the doctor's or obstetrician’s recommendation. The case was advanced to the United States Supreme Court to hear an appeal, but the baby died before the case's conclusion. The Reagan administration had a clashing view with that of the Indiana Supreme Court (Darr, 2011). The Reagan administration argued that the decision to deny life-savin...