John Whitehead's Commentary
The 'Wrongful' Life of Sidney Ainsley Miller
Almost six months into her pregnancy, Karla Miller, who was showing signs of premature labor and a life-threatening infection, was admitted to The Woman's Hospital of Texas. After examining her, Karla's doctors had to break the news to her and her husband Mark that if their baby girl was born alive and survived, she would suffer severe impairments.
The Millers asked that no heroic measures be performed on the baby after her birth. But, as the hospital staff explained, the decision to save the baby's life was out of their hands. If the baby was born alive and weighed more than 500 grams, the medical staff would be obligated by law and hospital policy to administer life-sustaining procedures even without the Millers' consent. Mark again repeated his and Karla's desire that their baby not be resuscitated.
Sidney Ainsley Miller was born late that night. At 1.4 pounds, she just barely weighed enough to qualify for the hospital's life-saving efforts. But she did qualify, and she survived.
Now, 11 years later, Sidney is both blind and retarded, unable to do most of the things other kids her age are able to do. Unable to walk, talk or feed herself, she is completely dependent on her parents for her existence--an existence Sidney's parents are struggling to cope with.
In a take-off on a wrongful death suit, the Millers filed a wrongful life lawsuit against the Hospital Corporation of America. They claim that had the hospital heeded their request to not carry out life-sustaining procedures on Sidney, she might have been spared acute suffering. The Millers contend that the hospital should be liable for treating Sidney without their consent and for having a policy that requires the resuscitation of newborn infants weighing over 500 grams, even in the absence of parental consent.
A trial court agreed with the Millers and awarded them a judgment of $29,400,000 in past and future medical expenses, $13,500,000 in punitive damages, and $17,503,066 in prejudgment interest. But a Texas appeals court took a different view of the matter and reversed the lower court's ruling.
The district court's decision hinged on one critical question: Do parents have a right to deny urgently needed life-sustaining medical treatment to their child, i.e., to decide, in effect, to let their child die?
The court conceded that Texas law expressly gives parents a right to consent to their children's medical care, which they inferred to mean that parents also had the right not to consent to medical treatment for a child.
But, in the end, their ruling rested on the Texas legislature's actions regarding parental rights. While the legislation grants parents the right to withhold medical treatment, urgently needed or not, for a child whose medical condition is certifiably terminal, it has not extended that right to the parents of children with non-terminal impairments, deformities, or disabilities, regardless of their severity.
Obviously sympathetic toward the Millers' plight, the justices did acknowledge that perhaps an exception needed to be made in the law to allow for infants born so prematurely and in such poor condition that sustaining their life, even if medically possible, cannot be justified.
Faced with mounting medical bills, the Millers appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, which last week heard oral arguments in the case.
Not surprisingly, the debate has mushroomed beyond 11-year-old Sidney Ainsley Miller's limited universe to touch on the rights of the disabled, the distinctions placed on the value and quality of life, and the innate rights of parents versus those vested in the state and the law.
This is not an easy debate. To claim that all life is to be protected, no matter how painful, is to ignore Sidney's existence--one that is, according to her parents, lived out in perpetual pain.
But determining who should or should not be saved--and for what reasons--is akin to drawing a line in the sand. It becomes increasingly difficult to pin down specific guidelines when advances in technology allow premature babies to survive outside their mothers' wombs as early as 23 weeks.
Just as there are legitimate instances like Sidney's where the law can help parents and medical personnel navigate the treacherous moral and medical terrain, there will also be instances where the law can be abused for more superficial reasons.
This is what the disabled community fears most of all: that the possibility of a child being born disabled--or in any way less than perfect--would affect the decision about whether that child lives or dies. The scenario is not so far-fetched in a world where genetic manipulation is becoming far more accessible.
James Bopp, a Terre Haute, Ind., lawyer and president of the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, believes that "Children with disabilities are capable of living lives of great merit to themselves, their parents and their families. To sentence them not to live because they might have a condition that we'd prefer they not have . . . is unconscionable."
The solution--if there is one--lies somewhere in the middle.
The Millers asked that no heroic measures be performed on the baby after her birth. But, as the hospital staff explained, the decision to save the baby's life was out of their hands. If the baby was born alive and weighed more than 500 grams, the medical staff would be obligated by law and hospital policy to administer life-sustaining procedures even without the Millers' consent. Mark again repeated his and Karla's desire that their baby not be resuscitated.
Sidney Ainsley Miller was born late that night. At 1.4 pounds, she just barely weighed enough to qualify for the hospital's life-saving efforts. But she did qualify, and she survived.
Now, 11 years later, Sidney is both blind and retarded, unable to do most of the things other kids her age are able to do. Unable to walk, talk or feed herself, she is completely dependent on her parents for her existence--an existence Sidney's parents are struggling to cope with.
In a take-off on a wrongful death suit, the Millers filed a wrongful life lawsuit against the Hospital Corporation of America. They claim that had the hospital heeded their request to not carry out life-sustaining procedures on Sidney, she might have been spared acute suffering. The Millers contend that the hospital should be liable for treating Sidney without their consent and for having a policy that requires the resuscitation of newborn infants weighing over 500 grams, even in the absence of parental consent.
A trial court agreed with the Millers and awarded them a judgment of $29,400,000 in past and future medical expenses, $13,500,000 in punitive damages, and $17,503,066 in prejudgment interest. But a Texas appeals court took a different view of the matter and reversed the lower court's ruling.
The district court's decision hinged on one critical question: Do parents have a right to deny urgently needed life-sustaining medical treatment to their child, i.e., to decide, in effect, to let their child die?
The court conceded that Texas law expressly gives parents a right to consent to their children's medical care, which they inferred to mean that parents also had the right not to consent to medical treatment for a child.
But, in the end, their ruling rested on the Texas legislature's actions regarding parental rights. While the legislation grants parents the right to withhold medical treatment, urgently needed or not, for a child whose medical condition is certifiably terminal, it has not extended that right to the parents of children with non-terminal impairments, deformities, or disabilities, regardless of their severity.
Obviously sympathetic toward the Millers' plight, the justices did acknowledge that perhaps an exception needed to be made in the law to allow for infants born so prematurely and in such poor condition that sustaining their life, even if medically possible, cannot be justified.
Faced with mounting medical bills, the Millers appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, which last week heard oral arguments in the case.
Not surprisingly, the debate has mushroomed beyond 11-year-old Sidney Ainsley Miller's limited universe to touch on the rights of the disabled, the distinctions placed on the value and quality of life, and the innate rights of parents versus those vested in the state and the law.
This is not an easy debate. To claim that all life is to be protected, no matter how painful, is to ignore Sidney's existence--one that is, according to her parents, lived out in perpetual pain.
But determining who should or should not be saved--and for what reasons--is akin to drawing a line in the sand. It becomes increasingly difficult to pin down specific guidelines when advances in technology allow premature babies to survive outside their mothers' wombs as early as 23 weeks.
Just as there are legitimate instances like Sidney's where the law can help parents and medical personnel navigate the treacherous moral and medical terrain, there will also be instances where the law can be abused for more superficial reasons.
This is what the disabled community fears most of all: that the possibility of a child being born disabled--or in any way less than perfect--would affect the decision about whether that child lives or dies. The scenario is not so far-fetched in a world where genetic manipulation is becoming far more accessible.
James Bopp, a Terre Haute, Ind., lawyer and president of the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, believes that "Children with disabilities are capable of living lives of great merit to themselves, their parents and their families. To sentence them not to live because they might have a condition that we'd prefer they not have . . . is unconscionable."
The solution--if there is one--lies somewhere in the middle.
ABOUT JOHN W. WHITEHEAD
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His most recent books are the best-selling Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the award-winning A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, and a debut dystopian fiction novel, The Erik Blair Diaries. Whitehead can be contacted at staff@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission
John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact staff@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.
