Abstract
I consider the case far more complex than the reviewing committee made it out to be. Was the child's health at any time enhanced by the therapy? There was never any possibility oflong-term survival with complete dependence on IV alimentation. In fact, the therapy can be viewed as a form of death prolongation only. Who paid for the therapy? We are told the child spent approximately half of his life in the hospital. At a conservative two thousand dollars a day, this treatment regime cost at least $500,000. Is this an appropriate use of a scarce resource? What of the question of nonmaleficence? This child's body was operated on any number of times in a situation where good health was never possible. Should this not be considered?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
