Baby with brain damage dies after parents run out of legal options
BMJ 2018; 360 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1140 (Published 09 March 2018) Cite this as: BMJ 2018;360:k1140All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Where do the parents get the money to support these ill judged legal attempts to interfere in the best possible care of their terminally ill children? Yet again we are looking at one of the "downsides" of social media on the internet - a Facebook page for the unfortunate child in question with requests for donations plus membership of other sites for "crowd funding"! Of course the money flows in and ends ultimately in the pockets of lawyers who pursue these sad and hopeless cases. These lawyers who take on such cases should reflect on the ethics of their behaviour - they breed and nourish the breakdown of trust between the parents and the hospitals caring for these children; and they promote a "false hope" that makes the acceptance of the inevitable more difficult and the subsequent bereavement reaction more intense! The courts are not the right place to sort these medical issues out - there must be a better and less expensive way of doing this which does not involve expensive legal fees.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Baby with brain damage dies after parents run out of legal options
The BMJ coverage of Isaiah Hastrup feels very disappointing to me.
The title says that the baby died “after [the] parents run out of legal options”. Is it not more accurate to say that this poor baby died because of his incurable condition?
I’m not, of course, saying that doctors always know best. I know that is not the case. But the expert medical opinion is apparently clear that more treatment would not be in the baby’s best interests. Why is the BMJ apparently taking another view?
The use of the words “failed” and “last ditch application" perpetuate an adversarial approach which surely cant help anyone: the baby, the parents or the clinical staff.
Most importantly, I don’t think that yet more legal action is “the only remaining option”. Family members can sit with, be with, and spend scarce time appreciating and loving, and saying good-bye to their loved ones.
Does the BMJ really not consider this is an option?
Competing interests: No competing interests