The Washington Post reports this morning that "the family of a 12-year-old New York boy is entangled in a legal fight with Children's National Medical Center over whether doctors can cease life support because they believe he is brain-dead."
"The dispute involves Motl Brody of Brooklyn, who was diagnosed with a severe form of brain cancer. . . . His tumor grew progressively worse, and doctors there pronounced him dead Tuesday night after tests showed no signs of brain activity." But Motl's parents, Eluzer and Miriam Brody, are trying to prevent the hospital from taking him off life support because they say their faith does not define death as cessation of brain function alone."
The hospital, as have many other hospitals around the United States in similar cases, taken the dispute to D.C. Superior Court. In filings, the hospital extended its sympathy to the family but said the boy should no longer be on its equipment, saying that "scarce resources are being used for the preservation of a deceased body."
The hospital wants a court order, over the parents' objections, that affirms its plan to disconnect the boy from a ventilator and to discontinue intravenous medications that keep his heart beating. But the parents' attorney "says that doing so would infringe upon religious freedom."
I expect the D.C. Superior Court to rule in favor of the hospital. In contrast to the case with most medical futility disputes (e.g. PVS, metastatic cancer, multi-organ failure . . .), hospitals pretty clearly do not have any legal obligation to treat dead patients.
The Washington Post reports this morning that "the family of a 12-year-oldNew York
"The dispute involves Motl Brody ofBrooklyn , who was diagnosed with a severe form of brain cancer. . . . His tumor grew progressively worse, and doctors there pronounced him dead Tuesday night after tests showed no signs of brain activity." But Motl's parents, Eluzer and Miriam Brody, are trying to prevent the hospital from taking him off life support because they say their faith does not define death as cessation of brain function alone."
The hospital, as have many other hospitals around theUnited States
The hospital wants a court order, over the parents' objections, that affirms its plan to disconnect the boy from a ventilator and to discontinue intravenous medications that keep his heart beating. But the parents' attorney "says that doing so would infringe upon religious freedom."I expect the D.C. Superior Court to rule in favor of the hospital. In contrast to the case with most medical futility disputes (e.g. PVS, metastatic cancer, multi-organ failure . . .), hospitals pretty clearly do not have any legal obligation to treat dead patients.