The real fallacy embedded in this article is that the situation is NO DIFFERENT with private health…
Alan Marshall Milner

Certainly must agree with Allen Milner here. Don’t delude yourself into thinking this won’t happen in a multiple third payor system like the US has with Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. All three of these entities routinely control and accept or deny certain medical treatments based on whatever system they chose to determine whether a treatment is either indicated, experimental, or effective despite the fact that medical science has shown the treatment to be beneficial.

The solution here is to remove the decision making process from a legal system of courts, judges, and attorneys who possess extremely limited medical knowledge compared to the existing medical community. The disposition of this case should rest with a medical ethics committee capable of fully exploring options with the parents and GOSH should comply with that decision. In this case, negotiating a plan with the parents to allow the treatment and life support to continue for a limited predetermined period of time afterwhich withdrawal of life support would be planned in the event the child demonstrated no signs of improvement. This gives the parents the opportunity to pursue more avenues of treatment, but also allows the hospital to limit its costs for support in the event the child fails to improve. Medical ethics committees are a better solution here rather than the courts.

Like what you read? Give Keith Jantz a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.