A Medical And Ethical Dilemma

I have thought this one over for a few days now.  I don't completely agree or disagree with either side in this story.  I can see the flaws in logic that worry me in many ways, including a parent's right to make medical choices for their children.

In a nutshell, a mother decided to deny her child treatment, and as a result the child died of leukemia.  That the child was autistic, developmentally disabled and nonverbal further complicates the issue.  The mother's explanation was that she could not bear to make her child suffer.  The child would have most likely died a slower and far more painful death, and been completely unable to comprehend or express their suffering.  What some call medical and parental neglect others may call compassion.  A jury recently found her guilty of attempted murder.  Her decision was made without support or guidance, but I do understand that some see extending life while others only see extending suffering.  That is the train of thought I rode around in circles.

"It can be so overwhelming for a single parent to deal with a child who is autistic, nonverbal, and developmentally delayed," said Carney. "It is cruel to add to that burden a diagnosis of cancer and a requirement that the mom administer medicine that will cause the child even more pain."

Is a parent at liberty to forgo treatment? According to the courts, apparently not.

The closest analogy appears to be a 1986 case in which Christian Scientist parents rejected surgery for their son, suffering from a bowel condition, in favor of spiritual treatment. In that situation, Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court ruled that parents, despite their religious beliefs, are obligated to rely on conventional medicine to treat their critically ill children.

The mother's real mistake was in making the decision without a doctor's input.  It's worrisome that the system allowed this to happen without setting of any type of red flags so that someone looked deeper.  I can see why it was good to have traditional medicine treat a bowel disorder, and I can also see why refusing to prolong the suffering of an already devastated patient is worth intense discussion and scrutiny.  What I can't find for myself is the line that separates the two, defined in a way that makes it fair and applicable.  I also wonder how this will be applied, including parents who decline immunization to dangerous diseases.


One thing is for certain.  This poor woman did not see justice in any way, at any time.  That her son isn't suffering is surely a bitter comfort while she faces prison.