Doctor not liable for saving child

Lauren Ellerman

Contributor

0 CommentsPrint ArticleSubscribe

Wow... This one really tests the limits of malpractice I think. What do you think?
Seattle Post Intelligencer reports today that physician is not held liable by high court.

The baby's parents filed a malpractice lawsuit after his 2004 birth. They claimed doctors in Vancouver were negligent when they continued to resuscitate the baby for almost half an hour after he was born.

Nichole Stewart-Graves and Todd Graves also said the medical team should have gotten their consent before continuing to try to revive their newborn son, Liam Stewart-Graves. The boy suffers from cerebral palsy, mental retardation, seizures and other disorders.

In a unanimous decision, Supreme Court justices agreed with a lower court that the couple's doctor, Katherine Vaughn, couldn't be sued for malpractice because she tried to keep the baby from dying.

The Court further says "We will not recognize a standard of care that requires a health care provider to withhold treatment of a newborn infant based on the likelihood that the infant will be severely disabled, if it survives."
"Physicians must presume that life is preferable to death, even if that means a severely disabled life," the court added.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Medical Malpractice and Negligent Care.