The decision by Young J in Re Baby B (No 2) has often been described as a milestone decision for the ambit of parental responsibility. Through his judgment, parental responsibility has been extended to authorise the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for critically ill neonates. The purpose of this essay is to critically analyse the standpoint of Australian law in relation to withdrawing and withholding care of ill neonates and offer recommendations if conflict arises.
Best Interest
Individual autonomy is a fundamental right that all human beings possess no matter what their stature. This cardinal principle is placed above all other merits such as patient welfare and sanctity of life. It is important to note that the …show more content…
In these circumstances, the Family Court or the Supreme Court acting in parens patriae jurisdiction may make orders in relation to the best interest of the child. These types of treatments are call “non-therapeutic” and the case law is well established in this area. Before the decision in Re Baby D (No 2) , the judgment in Marion’s Case was a landmark decision which addressed parental consent to medical procedures for non-therapeutic benefits. Their Honours in their judgment made it clear that consent to special medical procedures such as sterilization, gender reassignment and termination of pregnancy did not fall within the realm of parental authority. As the purpose of these procedures is not to treat life-threatening ailments and due to the gravity of their consequences, it is imperative to obtain court authorisation before treatment is allowed. The High Court stated that although the Family Court had the jurisdiction to make an order for the procedure; it could not extend parental power to special cases. The law tends to be more subjective in cases where consent is deemed to be within parental …show more content…
The parents of a premature severely disabled girl were informed that they believed any further treatment would be “futile” and recommended withdrawing care. The doctors placed a “do not resuscitate sign” above her cot in case she had breathing difficulties. The parents disagreed with the medical opinion and applied to the court for an order. The court found that on balancing the notion of “best interest”, it would be lawful for the doctors not to administer any life-sustaining treatment. It was held that if the baby were to survive a crisis it would cause such a detriment that her life will become
Best Interest
Individual autonomy is a fundamental right that all human beings possess no matter what their stature. This cardinal principle is placed above all other merits such as patient welfare and sanctity of life. It is important to note that the …show more content…
In these circumstances, the Family Court or the Supreme Court acting in parens patriae jurisdiction may make orders in relation to the best interest of the child. These types of treatments are call “non-therapeutic” and the case law is well established in this area. Before the decision in Re Baby D (No 2) , the judgment in Marion’s Case was a landmark decision which addressed parental consent to medical procedures for non-therapeutic benefits. Their Honours in their judgment made it clear that consent to special medical procedures such as sterilization, gender reassignment and termination of pregnancy did not fall within the realm of parental authority. As the purpose of these procedures is not to treat life-threatening ailments and due to the gravity of their consequences, it is imperative to obtain court authorisation before treatment is allowed. The High Court stated that although the Family Court had the jurisdiction to make an order for the procedure; it could not extend parental power to special cases. The law tends to be more subjective in cases where consent is deemed to be within parental …show more content…
The parents of a premature severely disabled girl were informed that they believed any further treatment would be “futile” and recommended withdrawing care. The doctors placed a “do not resuscitate sign” above her cot in case she had breathing difficulties. The parents disagreed with the medical opinion and applied to the court for an order. The court found that on balancing the notion of “best interest”, it would be lawful for the doctors not to administer any life-sustaining treatment. It was held that if the baby were to survive a crisis it would cause such a detriment that her life will become