Emergency Exception: Implied Consent on Child Medical Treatment

Essay Instructions:

Week.2- Tutorial Question
Questions:
TQ 2.1: Consent for Emergency Medical Services for Children and Adolescents: What is the emergency exception to parental consent? What is the rationale for the exception?
TQ 2.2: Douglas County v. Anaya: On what two grounds do the parents challenge the newborn screening statute? Why does the court reject the parents’ arguments?
TQ 2.3: Matter of Christine M.: Read section 1012(f) of the Family Court Act carefully. Why does the court find that Christine is a neglected child under section 1012(f)?
TQ 2.4: Matter of Christine M.: New York allows religious exemptions from vaccination. Why does the court reject the father’s argument that his daughter should be exempt from vaccination based on his religious objections?
TQ 2.5: Vaccine Information Statements: What is the goal of VISs? Do health care providers satisfy the duty to obtain informed consent by providing parents or guardians with a VIS before vaccinating the child?
Week.2- Discussion Board (250 words)
Questions
DQ 2.1: In addition to screening of newborns, many states require health care providers to administer a prophylactic solution into the newborn’s eyes within one hour of birth to prevent neonatal ophthalmia, a form of conjunctivitis contracted during passage through the birth canal. Neonatal ophthalmia can cause blindness if left untreated. Affirmative parental consent to administer the prophylactic solution is not required, but newborns whose parents object on religious grounds will not receive the treatment. Should states allow parents to object to the prophylactic treatment?
DQ 2.2: The COVID vaccine has highlighted the challenges presented when parents and children disagree about health care decisions. What should states do when a minor wishes to be vaccinated but the parent refuses consent? How should the state balance a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions about their child’s health care against the state’s interests in protecting the public health during a pandemic?
*****Required Reading*************
A. Emergency treatment
- AAP, Consent for Emergency Medical Services for Children and Adolescents AAP, Consent for Emergency Medical Services for Children and Adolescents - Alternative Formats
- Ala. Code tit. 22-8-3 Ala. Code tit. 22-8-3 - Alternative Formats
B. Abused and neglected children
- Texas Fam. Code Ann § 32.005 Texas Fam. Code Ann § 32.005 - Alternative Formats
C. Screening, genetic testing, and prophylactic treatment
- Douglas County v. Anaya (Neb. 2005) Douglas County v. Anaya (Neb. 2005) - Alternative Formats
- ACMG Policy Statement, Technical Report: Ethical and Policy Issues in Genetic Testing and Screening of Children
- Newborn Screening Statutes: N.Y. Pub. Health Law 2500-a; N.J. Stat. § 26:2-111.2; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-55 Newborn Screening Statutes: N.Y. Pub. Health Law 2500-a; N.J. Stat. § 26:2-111.2; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-55 - Alternative Formats
D. State-mandated vaccination
- In re Chistine M. In re Christine M. - Alternative Formats
- Colorado Stat-Immunization Exemptions Colorado Stat-Immunization Exemptions - Alternative Formats
- CDC, Vaccine Information Statements, Frequently Asked Questions
- CDC, MMR-Measles, Mumps, and Rubella VIS CDC, MMR-Measles, Mumps, and Rubella VIS - Alternative Formats
- The HPV Vaccine: Access and Use in the U.S.
- CDC, HPV VIS Gardasil

Essay Sample Content Preview:

Week 2
Student’s Name
Institution
Course Number and Name
Instructor’s Name
Date
Week 2
TQ 2.1: Emergency Exception
The emergency exception, which is also referred to as the doctrine of “implied consent” according to the American Association of Pediatrics [AAP] (2011), is the legal basis that allows health professionals to take any action in the event consent is unavailable. The rule is also supported by an ethical basis, that is, the duty of the health professional to pursue that which serves the best interests of the child. In essence, the rationale behind the emergency exception is that any reasonable person would consent to an emergency treatment if they understand the severity of the emergency (AAP, 2011). Nevertheless, it is important to understand that there are some conditions provided by the AAP (2011) that must be met before the health professional proceeds with the treatment. First, the emergent condition must place the life or health of the child in danger. Second, consent must be unavailable, that is, the guardian must be unavailable or not in a position to consent to the treatment. Third, the transport or treatment of the child cannot be postponed safely until consent can be attained. Fourth, the health professional must administer care or treatment only for the condition that places danger to the life or health of the child. In essence, health professionals ought to do what they believe serves the best interest of the child.
TQ 2.2: Douglas County v. Anaya
The parents challenge the newborn screening statute on two grounds. First, it is their argument that the law violates their First Amendment right that allows them to exercise their religion freely (Supreme Court of Nebraska, 2005). Since they raised free exercise of religion alongside a parental substantive due process claim, it is their argument that they now have a hybrid-rights claim, which necessitates a strict scrutiny review (Supreme Court of Nebraska, 2005). This means that there has to be a compelling government interest to justify the law. As cited in Employment Div., Ore. Dept. of Human Res. v. Smith, for one to freely exercise their religion, it means having the right to not only believe but also profess any religious doctrine that they find desirable(Supreme Court of Nebraska., 2005). Exercising religion also encompasses carrying out physical acts. Second, it was the argument of the parents that their right to the 14th Amendment/Fundamental Liberty interests had been infringed on. In this regard, they felt that enforcing immunization on their child would be abridging their privileges as U.S. citizens.
As per the court’s conclusion, the hybrid rights claim by the Anayas did not call for a strict scrutiny analysis of § 71-519 (Supreme Court of Nebraska., 2005). The court rejected the notion of strict scrutiny since a party does not have the capacity to force the standard on the government by just proclaiming that more than one constitutional right has been violated. In addition, the court decided that it would not use a stricter standard than that used in the case of Smith to assess state regulations that are generally applicable and exceptionless. It can only do so after the Supreme Court dete...

Updated on January 26, 2024

Get the Whole Paper!

Not exactly what you need?

Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Order

Emergency Exception: Implied Consent on Child Medical Treatment

You Might Also Like Other Topics Related to vaccination: