Doctors Playing Parents Playing God

Does the right to religion override a medical facilities right to cease treatment?

On the first of June, 12 year old Motl Brody was admitted to Children’s National Medical Center in Washington after undergoing brain surgery for his progressive brain tumor. He never regained consciousness. For the past few months, he has been living on a ventilator, his brain activity slowly decreasing and on November 4, was declared legally brain dead by the hospital. His family though, members of a Hasidic sect of the Jewish community, refused to allow the hospital to take Motl off of life support, believing that he was not dead until his heart and lungs stopped functioning. They filed for an injunction to stop the hospital from acting against their wishes and discontinuing treatment. The hospital stated that Motl had ceased all functions- even more so than Terri Schiavo or Karen Ann Quinlan, the two precedents used- and wanted to exercise their right not to treat the boy any longer. The case was scheduled to be heard last Wednesday, but was postponed because of Motl’s deteriorating health which he finally succumbed to on Saturday the 15th.

The hospital, in its original arguments, declared that it had taken several steps to accommodate the family including seeking out a place that could sustain a child on life support until the family was ready and even encouraged the family to take the boy home where he could pass in peace. The parents, however, refused, stating that the movement could be detrimental and was against their religious beliefs it could ultimately bring about their son’s death. The hospital also pressed for more tests to be done on the brain to truly establish that all functions had ceased, but the family would not agree to this either because of their belief in death based on heart and lung function and not brain. It is undisputed that Motl Brody’s heart and lungs were only functioning because of the drugs being pumped through him to maintain blood pressure and the machine breathing into his body.

So, who has the right to decide- the parents or the hospital? Are resources more important than religion?

Parental rights take all to me, and since those are based in religion, religion must be protected. The parents held a belief that they could not morally stop treatment under the eyes of God and told the hospital no. That is essentially all I need to know. It was their child and thus their right to decide when to “pull the plug”. There is a reason for the current process of telling the family there is no hope and leaving it with them to sign or not and if the court is going to override their decision, what is the point in asking at all? From a religious standing alone, this country is based on the respect of beliefs (theoretically), not only when it is convenient or unanimous, but in times such as this where two different communities believe two very different things. It is not within the power of the medical institution to override religious belief. (But I think the larger issue is parental rights)

In regards to the idea of wasting resources (one of the hospital’s motivations for wanting to take the child off life support), someone is going to pay for those services and it is not part of the Hippocratic oath to base your decisions about harm off of monetary standings. If the parents believe their child is alive, you are killing them by removing the tube and that violates what we currently accept as the no harm standard.

Had this case been played out fully, I would hope that the court would rule in favor of the family because this is an overstep of the hospital and a clear instance where the religious freedoms of the nuclear family need to be protected.