Article Summary: This article addresses a Texas state court legal battle between the family of 10-month-old baby Tinslee Lewis and the Cook Children’s Hospital when the hospital’s Medical Ethics Committee acted to remove the child’s life-sustaining care after determining her medical conditions are terminal and continued care is only causing unnecessary suffering. Texas law, specifically Section 166.046 of the Texas Advance Directives Act, allows an ethics committee to choose to end treatment if doctors determine care is futile or medically inappropriate. Tinslee Lewis’ mother is challenging this state law as a violation of the baby’s Due Process rights under the federal Constitution. While the hospital ethics committee had sufficient state law legal authority to act the way they did, it raises significant ethical (as well as personal moral) issues and concerns.
Questions: Should the costs of continued, but potentially futile, medical care be a factor in a hospital’s ethics committee’s decision-making process? Why or why not? Does the State of Texas (or any state) have a legitimate interest in reducing healthcare costs and making services available to others? State why and be specific. What three Universal Values in Ethical Decision-Making relevant to this decision-making process should the MEC have considered and why? What two ethical decision-making model(s) should the MEC considered by the ethics committee and why? In your opinion, did the hospital’s MEC get it right in this case? Why or why not?
Ensure you completely address and answer all the above discussion requirements.
