In Re Baby K. (1993)
- Sam Shepherd
- Jun 23
- 3 min read
By Kwasi Bonsu
Overview
In this federal case, a baby, Baby K, was born with defects that require special attention and treatment. More specifically, most babies with these specific brands of defects die within a few days. As such, the hospital prescribed a certain treatment; however, Baby K’s parents, Ms. H and Mr. K, disagreed with it and wanted a more aggressive method. The hospital felt obligated to comply with the parents. Yet, as Baby K’s complications persisted, the hospital pushed back and requested declaratory relief, stating that they should not be obligated to provide treatment they deem medically and ethically inappropriate.
Summary
In October 1992, Baby K was born with anencephaly, which is a malformation that causes missing portions of the scalp, skull, and brain. In Baby K, this manifested as a missing cerebrum, leaving her without autonomic function, reflex actions, and in a permanently unconscious state. Thus, she lacks cognitive ability, sight, and hearing. At birth, she had difficulty breathing, which necessitated a ventilator to understand her condition further. That is when the doctors told the parents that anencephalic children do not live long after birth. Subsequently, the hospital recommended a treatment of nutrition, hydration, and warmth instead of a more aggressive approach because it would not be therapeutic or palliative.
The doctors even discussed the possibility of a “Do Not Resuscitate Order” with the parents.
The doctor and Ms. H could not reach an agreement on Baby K’s treatment plan. Ms. H insisted that Baby K be put on the ventilator whenever she has difficulty breathing, but the hospital still believed that was inappropriate. As a result, the hospital tried to move the baby, but no pediatric intensive care units in the area would take her. In November 1992, the baby no longer needed the hospital’s acute care services and was taken to a nursing home.
Unfortunately, Baby K was readmitted to the Hospital three times due to breathing difficulties, and after the second the Hospital filed a declaratory action. This was because the hospital deemed the treatment the parents wanted as unethical and medically inappropriate. Mr. K joined in the hospital’s request while Ms. H steadily opposed both entities. Afterwards, the court denied the request for declaratory relief as a result of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals to provide said aggressive treatment to stabilize the child.
The Hospital and Mr. K appealed this decision, citing that under the statute of law, a physician’s duty to provide what they deem an ethical and appropriate treatment directly conflicts with the EMTALA in this case. Further, they deemed that there was no reason to keep a child of this condition alive. The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against individuals like the baby, the Rehabilitation Act, which reinforces access to healthcare for individuals like the baby, and again, the EMTALA.
Impact
In Re Baby K. provides a bolstering of access to healthcare for disabled individuals. This creates a framework where institutions do not get to treat individuals with disabilities differently, no matter their ailment. A handicap does not make you less entitled to life and the prospect of having one.
Court Documents
In re BABY K.
No. 96–775.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire.
Dec. 18, 1998.
Citations
Quimbee (n.d) https://www.quimbee.com/cases/in-re-baby-k
