Ethics Blog 8

Topic: Experimental Case

In 2003, a two-year-old baby named Michael Daddio died of congestive heart failure. After the death of the child, the parents found out that the procedure they had initially approved for the baby to undergo was not the one doctors performed. The initial procedure would have surgically repaired the child’s congenital heart defect, having a ninety to ninety-five-percent success rate. Instead, the doctors decided to perform an experimental surgery, which put the baby at great risk and later was the blamed cause of death.

I find this case to be outrageous and absolutely defiant on the doctors’ behalf. Not only are the doctors to blame here, but the medical facility as well since it allows such behavior to occur. First and for most, doctors are supposed to honor the parents’ choice in cases where children are underage and dependent. I do not understand why any doctor would want to put a baby through a new, risky surgery, rather than an established one. Not only did doctors break ethical codes in this case, but they also broke legislation laws which grant permission and consent to such medical care.

Ethically, this case breaks the trust in the doctor-patient relationship. Trust involves confidence that a person will act with the right motives. To tell the truth and act with truth gives an individual integrity if they uphold their word. Because the doctors in this case got the parents’ consent for one thing, but acted on another, they did not uphold this family’s trust and also lost their integrity in the process. If the doctors wanted to perform the experimental surgery, they should have asked the parents for consent for that specific procedure from the beginning; that way, they would have told the truth and not acted unethically. Also, along with trust, the doctors did not exhibit fidelity in this case, since they acted in a way that was not truly committed to the family. Like so many other cases, the doctors in this case did not demonstrate a strong role of beneficence. By not “doing good” for the patient and giving the experimental procedure, the doctors also showed an inability to make good decisions on the patient’s behalf, since the experimental surgery put the baby at high medical risk and later caused the baby’s death.

Legally, when a patient signs for a procedure to be performed and it is not upheld correctly, it places the attending doctors at high danger of being sued for malpractice and negligence. By not fulfilling the doctors’ duty to care which resulted in injury to the baby, the parents would have the legal grounds necessary to charge the doctors with a form of negligence. Since the doctors breached the contract with the child’s parents, the parents could also a file a tort charge against them as well. It is understandable that sometimes accidents do occur and things do not always go as planned. But, the odds of ‘accidentally’ giving a patient another procedure, especially one which is experimental, is highly unlikely and an unacceptable behavior/action from any doctor.

Personally, I found this case to be upsetting since the baby died as a direct result of the treatment received. If I was in the parent position, I would do all in my power to insure that this would not happen to someone else’s child. Experimental procedures are necessary in order to improve science and medical research; however, they should never, in any way, be pushed upon people or performed unethically as reported in this case.