Finally, A victory for common sense.

Wow that is a double-edged sword. That doctor was doomed no matter what. I have to agree with the court, a firm decision would have to be made and if the doctor let the baby die the parents could have sued for that. So there needs to be a right and wrong decision, regardless of the outcome for the child. That sucks.

Since most doctors take the Hippocratic oath, I think the decision was the right one unless the parents explicitly told the doctor otherwise.

"Since most doctors take the Hippocratic oath, I think the decision was the right one unless the parents explicitly told the doctor otherwise."

Don't ALL medical doctors take that oath? Anyway, I don't think it should apply when a person is already dead. I'm a big fan of dignity. They should ask the parents when possible and if not, let the poor child go.

No, the Hippocratic oath is not a requirement.

If this were a person lingering I'd agree, but this was a newborn without a heartbeat. There is no time for waivers and pondering and decisions, seconds count if the baby were to be revived. I agree about the death with dignity and I think what should have happened, since this was an emergency C-section was to ask the parents prior to the surgery what they would want done if the baby were to not survive. But since that didn't happen (and that's more of a hospital administration fault than an individual doctor) the doctor had to make a decision.

Ok, didn't know the oath was optional. I wonder why they can't find medical doctors willing to administer a lethal injection, then.

I guess it would be best to make it a standard question before a delivery..

There's a bit more detailed article here.

I am SO glad the doctor is not liable! As thenegativeone said, this is also a victory for common sense.

I have to wonder, if the couple didn't want doctors to do everything possible to keep their baby alive, why did they allow the emergency surgery to take place? Why did they even bother going to a hospital?

I shudder to think about what might happen if the couple had won, but I feel good knowing that everyone including the Chief Justice seem to agree on the ruling.

Surely there was no way for the doctor to have known reviving the baby would result in brain damage. I know that after a certain period oxygen deprivation to the brain can lead to brain damage, but not in 100% of cases.

This is why euthanasia needs to be an option for severely disabled infants, and adults who so opt.

Of course the doctor should not be charged for reviving a baby, though.

Common sense isn't so common these days but I am glad there is still some surviving in the world. When our second child was born a month early she came out purple and limp. About 60 seconds later she cried and my wife and I were able to breathe. Those was the longest minute in the world to us. The doctors and nurses were outstanding. They spoke of her condition like they were conversing about the weather. Never a raised or concerned voice, just calm, collected, reasonable diagnosis and resolution.

The mothers life. Complicated births have a very high mortality rate if left to natural devices for the mother as well, not jsut the infant.

I'm glad to finally see some common sense too. There was no way anyone could of known how the baby would turn out, it was possible it could be revived completely normally. And either way, everyone should always try and SAVE a life. There's no second guessing when you have 5seconds to make life and death call under extreme pressure.

While the doctor made the right decision, I do agree though, that perhaps life was not the best outcome for the child... as bad as that sounds. (though it sounds more as though the parents just dont want a disabled child - i can hardly see them complaining if the child had been born and revived completely normal. And as mentioned, there was no way of knowing previously)

I see a clear difference between saving a life and reanimation. Also, I think in some cases one should not try and save a life at all cost.

I wonder if it's factual that " .. he kept on resuscitating their baby for about half an hour after his birth ..". If it is, the doctor was not acting in the interest of the child, but in his own. It would be very unlikely that a newborn is healthy after such a long time. It wouldn't have been euthanasia either, the child was dead.