Exploring Ethical Dilemmas: Decision-Making in Baby G and Baby K Cases

This case study analyzes two cases, Baby G and Baby K, highlighting the ethical dilemmas in neonatal care. Baby G's parents desired continued care despite the infant's condition, leading to an ethics committee review and eventual parental decision-making. Baby K, born with a severe condition, involved conflicting views between parents and healthcare providers, culminating in legal action and a judge's ruling supporting parental rights and continued care. The study emphasizes the significance of parental involvement, the role of ethics committees, and the complexities of balancing medical ethics with legal considerations in critical care scenarios, referencing the importance of parental decision-making in the interest of the infants as argued by Boss et al., (2008). The study highlights that the ethics committee supported the parents decisions and respected their rights.

Decision-making process
In the case study pertaining Baby G, the views of the parents are to proceed on with the
birth of the child and the infant condition being managed in the neonatal intensive care unit
despite the state of disease of the patient. There was reluctance on the part of the health care
staff on the basis of infant quality of life thereafter. The parents of the infant understood very
well on the seriousness of the disease of the child and accepted on any eventual death of the
child. Despite the stoppage of medical treatment, the child was still alive and had gained
strength without the use of the ventilator. Baby G, the case was taken up to the ethics
committee who deliberated on varied treatment options and eventually allowed the parents to
make final decisions based on their recommendations made on the beneficial line of
treatment to be offered.
In the second case study involving baby K, born through cesarean section, with
Anencephaly condition diagnosed prenatally, the parents continued with the treatment. Days
after birth, the infant developed breathing complications and placed on ventilation. On this
period the physician urged the parents to discontinue the treatment option for the child. Upon
the insistence of the parents for continued treatment, the physician took the case to the ethics
committee, which a resolution for legal redress if the parents persisted on the care provided
for the child. Baby K, was transferred to a nursing home without the use of mechanical
ventilation and only received respiratory care in the facility if there was an occurrence.
The hospital proceeded to court to seek halting of medical care providers acting on the
State Law Act on rendering inappropriate care for baby K. The judge in the case ruled in
favor of the parents and the child, which allowed the hospital to offer care for the child in
favor of life even with slim chances. The judge argued that the state law was ambiguous in its
description and further allowing the action of the hospital meant denying many patients
treatment of care.
The best treatment option offered by ethics committee referring to Baby G is the
preferred decision. The committee offered various options but respected the rights of the
parents as they have an ultimate decision regarding care of their children as argued by Boss et
al., (2008), by allowing parents to make decisions regarding the interest of the infants.

Reference
Boss, R. D., Hutton, N., Sulpar, L. J., West, A. M., & Donohue, P. K. (2008). Values parents
apply to decision-making regarding delivery room resuscitation for high-risk newborns.
Pediatrics, 122(3), 583-589.