Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Compassion and mercy are not helpful in resolving intractable family-physician conflicts on end-of-life care

Journal of Perinatology volume 39, pages 11–17 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

“Compassion and mercy” are important values for humanizing medicine. There are limits, however, in their ability to help resolve disputes between physicians and families regarding appropriate end-of-life care. The recent cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans in England highlight the issue. The English courts resolve such conflicts by an independent assessment of a court. The American judicial system does not share the centralized system of the English courts. In the United States Federal structure some 50 state legislatures and 50 state court systems go their separate ways. The result is differing, frequently conflicting, standards. We explore possible ways to avoid court involvement in the American context for resolving such disputes within the patient-physician relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Young, HH. Malaysia PM says caning of lesbians counter to ‘Compassion of Islam https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-09-06/malaysian-pm-says-caning-of-lesbians-counter-to-compassion-of-islam. Accessed 11 Sept 2018.

  2. Francis P. A big heart open to god. America Mag. 2013, p. 2.

  3. Coday, D. The field hospital church. National Catholic Reporter 2013, p. 1.

  4. Great Ormond Street Hospital v. Yates and Gard [2017] EWHC 972 (Fam) (England and Wales High Court Family Decision), April 11, 2017, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2017/972.h5ml. Accessed 4 Sept 2017.

  5. Paris JJ, Ahluwalia J, Cummings BM, Moreland MP, Wilkinson DJ. The Charlie Gard case: British and American approaches to court resolution of disputes over medical decisions. J Perinatol. 2017;37:1268–71.

  6. Clark K. Alfie’s last days: a little boy’s life and death stoked a furious debate that will not soon end. America Mag. 26 April 2018. https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/08/04/26/alfies-last-days-little-boys-life-and-death-stoked-furious-debate-will-not-soon-end. Accessed 4 July 2018.

  7. Gard and Others v. The United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights. 3 July 2017, https://hudoc.echr.int/eng# {“itemid”:[“001-175359”]}. Accessed 4 Sept 2017.

  8. Camosy C. On the Charlie Gard case, the church needs to be clear. CRUX, 3 July 2017. https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/07/03/charlie-gard-case-church-needs-clear-prophetic/html. Accessed 12 Aug 2017.

  9. Dougherty MB. The Vatican’s statement on the Charlie Gard case is a disgrace. The National Review. 30 June 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449159/vatican-charlie-gard-statement-sides-state-over-family. Accessed 13 Aug 2017.

  10. Williams TD. Pope Francis Reverses Vatican Judgment on Charlie Gard Case, siding with parents. Breitbart News, 3 July 2017 at 1. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/03/pope-francis-reverses-vatican-judgment-charlie-gard-siding-parents. Accessed 12 Sept 2017.

  11. Bilefsky D, Chan S. Dispute oer British Baby’s fate draws in Pope and U.S. President. NY Times, 3 July 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/03/world/europe/uk-trump-pope-francis-charlie-gard.html?_r=o. Accessed 12 Sept 2017.

  12. Clark K. The life and death of Alfie Evans. Am Mag. 2018;26:28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  13. UK Parliament, The Children’s Act 1989. Granted Royal Assent on 16 November 1989 and became an Act House of Commons, Tuesday 16 November 1989. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons. 16 November 1989. col 457. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm198889/cmhansrd/1989-11-16/Debate-1.html.

  14. Paris JJ, Graham N, Schreiber MD, Goodwin M. Has the emphasis on autonomy gone too far? Insights from dostoevsky on parental decisionmaking in the NICU. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2006;15:147–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Paris J, Bell A. Guarantee my child will be “normal” or stop all treatment. J Perinatol. 1993;13:469–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. People V. Bennett: analytic approaches to recognizing a fundamental parental right under the ninth amendment. BYU Law Rev. 1996;186:227–34.

  17. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N. E. 92 (1914).

  18. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health 476 U.S. 261.

  19. Amundsen DW. The physician’s obligation to prolong life: a medical duty without classical roots. Hastings Cent Rep. 1978;8:23–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Plato. The Republic, Book III (trans. Allan Bloom) 3rd ed. New York: Basic Books;1992. p. 408–26.

  21. Great Ormond Street Hospital v. Yates and Gard [2017] EWHC 1909 (Fam) 24 July 2017. Case No. FD17P00103. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/great-ormond-street-hospital-v-yates-and-gard-24-july-2017. Accessed 5 Sept 2017.

  22. An NHS Trust v. MB [2006] 2 FLR 319.

  23. Re J (A minor) (Wardship treatment) [1991] Fam 33 at p. 46.

  24. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Vatican Libreria Editrice 1992, No. 2278.

  25. Caplan A, Cohen CB, editors. Imperiled Newborns. Hastings Cent Rep. 1987;17:5–32.

  26. Bartholomew WG. The child-patient: do parents have the right to decide? In Spicker S, Englehardt T, Healey J, et al., editors. The law-medicine relation: a philosophical explanation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel;1981, p. 126–32.

  27. Committee on Fetus and Newborn, American Academy of Pediatrics. Nonintervention or withdrawal of intensive care for high-risk newborns. Pediatrics 2007;119:401–3.

  28. Thurow LC. Learning to say ‘no’. N Engl J M. 1984;311:1569–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Annas GH. Asking the courts to set the standard of emergency care—the case of Baby K. N Engl J Med. 1994;350:1542–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Paris JJ, Cummings BM, Moore MP. Brain-death,’ ‘death’ and parental refusal: the case of Jahi McMath. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2014;23:371–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dolan CB. A personal story of representing Jahi McMath. San Francisco Examiner 2013:1.

  32. Brain-dead: Jahi McMath’s family searches for options as life-support cut off looms. GlobalVille News at http://globalvillenews.com/tag/arthur-caplan. Accessed 17 Jan 2014.

  33. Brain-dead florida girl will be sent home on life support. NY Times, 19 Feb 1994. http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/vs/brain-dead-floridagirl. Accessed 21 Jan 2014.

  34. Paris JJ, Bell AJ, Murphy JJ. Pediatric brain-death: dead is dead. J Perinatol. 1995;15:67–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Collins LM, Thomas L. Jesse loses his battle with brain tumor. Desert News http://wwwdeseretnews.com/article/595106792/Jesse-loses-his-battle-with-brain-tumor . Accessed 20 Jan 2014.

  36. Alexander KL. Judge delays decision on removing life support. Wash Post 2008 Nov 11:B5. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-days/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111001408.html Accessed 20 Jan 2014.

  37. McMath J. The California girls in life-support controversy, is now dead. Wash Post, 29 June 2018 p. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/06/29/jahi-mcmath-the-calif-girl-declared-brain-dead-4-years-ago-is-taken-off-life-support/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0c88c33e2962. Accessed 8 Oct 2018.

  38. Shakespeare W. The Merchant of Venice Act IV, Scene 1. New York: Modern Library. p. 150–1. ISBN 978-1-58836-874-4.

  39. Tocqueville de A. Democracy in America. New York: Bantam Classics; 2000.

  40. Powell v. Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, 49 Misc 2nd 215, 267 N.Y.S. 2nd 450 (1965).

  41. Schneiderman LJ, Faber-Langendon K, Jecker NS. Beyond futility to an ethics of care. Am J Med. 1994;96:110–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Paris JJ, Crone R, Reardon F. Physicians’ refusal of requested treatment: the case of Baby L. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:1012–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Helft P, Siegler M, Lantos J. The rise and fall of the futility movement. N Engl J M. 2000;343:293–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hudson v. Texas Children’s Hospital 2005 WL497818 (Tex. App—Hous. (1 Dist).

  45. Paris JJ, Billings JA, Cummings BM, Moreland MP. Howe v. MGH and Hudson v. Texas children’s hospital: two approaches to resolving family-physician disputes in end-of-life care. J Perinatol. 2006;26:726–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Nichols B. Hospital ends life support of baby: 1st case of its kind is against mom’s wish, in accordance with law. Morning News, 15, 2005 at A1.

  47. Texas Health and Safety Code §166.046(a) (Vernon Supp 2002).

  48. Paris JJ, Cummings BM, Moreland MP, Batten JN. Approaches to parental femand for non-established medical treatment: reflection on the Charlie Gard care. J Med Ethics. 2018;1–4. 10.1136/medethics-2018-104902.

  49. Bosslet G. An official ATS/AACN/ACCP/ESICM/SCCM policy statement: responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191:1318–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hunt SA. Taking heart-cardiac transplantation past, present and future. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:231–5. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp068048.

  51. Bailey L, Nehisen-Connarella SL, Conception W, Jolley WB. Baboon-to-human cardiac transplantation in a neonate. JAMA. 1985;254:3321–9.

  52. Blakeslee S. Baboon-heart implant in baby Fae in 1984 assailed as ‘wishful thinking. NY Times. 1985;12-20 ISSN 0362-4331. Accessed 10 Oct 2018.

  53. Caulley L. A seat at the table. N Engl J Med. 2018;3179:1400–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ingelfinger F. Arrogance. N Engl J Med. 1980;303:1507–1511.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Ave, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA

    John J. Paris

  2. Department of Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, MGH Pediatrics Ethics Committee, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, 02119, USA

    Brian M. Cummings

  3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Brian M. Cummings

  4. Boston College Law School, 885 Centre St., Newton, MA, 02459, USA

    M. Patrick Moore

Authors
  1. John J. Paris
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian M. Cummings
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Patrick Moore
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John J. Paris.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paris, J.J., Cummings, B.M. & Patrick Moore, M. Compassion and mercy are not helpful in resolving intractable family-physician conflicts on end-of-life care. J Perinatol 39, 11–17 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-018-0272-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-018-0272-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links