Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, February 11, 1994 TAG: 9402110118
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Fairfax Hospital must honor the mother's wishes that her infant be placed on a ventilator when she suffers respiratory distress.
The court cited a federal law that requires hospitals to treat emergency medical conditions. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act was enacted to prevent hospitals from "dumping" patients who needed emergency treatment but were unable to pay.
"We recognize the dilemma facing physicians who are requested to provide treatment they consider morally and ethically inappropriate, but we cannot ignore the plain language of the statute," said the ruling written by Judge William W. Wilkins Jr. He was joined by Judge Karen J. Williams.
In dissent, Judge James M. Sprouse said Congress never intended the anti-dumping law to apply to this type of case.
"Tragic end-of-life hospital dramas such as this one do not represent phenomena susceptible of uniform legal control," Sprouse wrote.
"In my view, Congress, even in its weakest moments, would not have attempted to impose federal control in this sensitive, private area."
The so-called "Baby K" case presented a new twist in medical ethics because the mother insisted on treatment against the hospital's wishes. In other "right-to-die" cases, the family has fought against treatment.
Baby K was born at the hospital in October 1992 with most of her brain missing, a condition known as anencephaly. The baby breathes, sucks, swallows and coughs but cannot think, see, hear or feel, the hospital said.
The baby lives in a nursing home but has returned to the hospital at least four times because of respiratory distress and was placed on a ventilator until she resumed breathing on her own.
The hospital had appealed a lower court order that the ventilator treatment must continue.
Julia Krebs-Markrich, an attorney for the hospital, said the case sets a precedent that limits the rights of hospitals and doctors.
"Congress never intended that physicians and hospitals would be forced to provide treatment that they properly consider to be medically and ethically inappropriate," she said.
She said the hospital was considering an appeal.
by CNB