THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, October 6, 1994 TAG: 9410060018
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A18 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 53 lines
The U.S. Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from a lower-court decision barring Fairfax Hospital in Northern Virginia from denying emergency medical treatment to a 2-year-old baby born without a brain.
The high court's refusal to hear the plea - one among 1,600 appeals that it declined Monday to take up - will not be the last word on whether hospitals should be required to take extraordinary measures to extend human life when the patient is in such condition that there is no prospect for any quality of life, as most people define it.
The question will arise more and more as medical progress continues and the percentage of elderly in the population continues to expand.
``Baby K,'' as she is identified in court papers, was born Oct. 13, 1992, in Fairfax Hospital, without a cerebral cortex and portions of skull and scalp.
This horrendous defect is rare and irremediable. Baby K is sustained by life-support systems in a nearby nursing facility, and that's normal procedure. But life-support technology does not usually enable babies born without brains to live very long. On at least four occasions, Fairfax Hospital has taken emergency action to maintain the child's breathing - an action that from every reasonable point of view appears pointless.
Baby K's mother insists on emergency treatment. The mother's attorneys cite her ``strong religious belief that all life has value and should be preserved.'' They dispute the hospital's contention that Baby K is ``dying'' and note that the child ``has normal heart rate, blood pressure, liver function, digestion, kidney function and bladder function'' and has gained weight since her birth.
But the hospital's attorneys note that, although her eyes are open, Baby K cannot see, cannot think, cannot feel pain and cannot interact with the world around her. She will never take her place in the world with other children.
At this point, federal law protects Baby K, as it does others, young and old, in similar circumstances, if a relative insists.
The law is the product of good intentions. It was designed to prevent hospitals from ridding themselves of inconvenient indigent patients.
But it reaches too far. It is by no means a settled point that human life should be prolonged indefinitely regardless of outlet for betterment. Keeping a patient alive when doing so transgresses against carefully drawn ethical guidelines makes no sense. The Supreme Court has rightly allowed the lower court's reading of the law to stand. But the law should be changed, to bring it in line with accepted medical practice. by CNB