Friday, November 09, 2007

No liability for doctor who revived newborn

From the Seattle Times

A doctor can't be held liable for resuscitating a baby who was born without a heartbeat and survived with severe disabilities, the state Supreme Court says.

The baby's parents filed a malpractice lawsuit after the baby's 2004 birth. They claimed doctors in Vancouver, Wash., were negligent when they continued to resuscitate the baby for almost half an hour, after he was born without a heartbeat.

The parents also said the medical team should have gotten their consent before continuing to revive the baby.

But the Supreme Court justices say the doctor can't be held liable for failing to stop resuscitation efforts on a baby.


At 11:50 PM, Blogger Jennifer Frank said...

I guess there are parents who aren't happy to see their baby surviving. I can only understand their grief IF the baby, after resuscitation, lived for years of suffering which eventually caused its death. I consulted with an Arizona medical malpractice lawyer and he told me that if the doctor learns that the parents strongly disagree to revive the baby, and still continued with resuscitation, only then will the Doctor be held liable. But thinking logically, it's normal for a human to want to save a life if they have the means to do it. I would have done the same.


Post a Comment

<< Home