This article is a key example of parental duty of care versus physicians’ duty of care. In this case a child born in an Arab country (the article failed to mention any specifics), prepped for a life-changing bone-marrow procedure, had had his immune system basically terminated in preparation for the surgery, and his mother was the donor, and was giving blood in anticipation of this operation. However, having previously agreed to the procedure, the father of the boy now wishes the son to return home, which is extremely dangerous at this stage due to the boy’s extremely low immune system and therefore his high susceptibility to infection. The presiding judge ruled that the child not be moved due to the threat the move had on the child.
Personally, I believe that at this point the judge made the right call. While parental influence is usually the most dominant view and decided whether the opinion of a physician shall be taken, the child’s health always presents the ultimatum. In this case, there was too great a threat on the child’s life to move him to a location taking hours by plane on his father’s unjustified request. The opinion of the father were not in the best interests of the child (though it would be better if the article provided more information), as at this time his health was the biggest concern and stopping the procedure would greatly harm the child. Perhaps if the father had come forward with his new opinion sooner the outcome may be different, but as it stands, the surgery should be allowed to go ahead without the father’s blessing for the welfare of the child, who is the only person the doctor’s are bond to.
Unfortunately I couldn’t upload the link but see the article at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-high-court-judge-orders-lifesaving-bone-marrow-transplant-to-go-ahead-for-threeyearold-boy-against-fathers-will-8983451.html
Medicine is Alive Everywhere 