Christian Scientist scenario

[jrm818]

I understand where you're coming from. Each person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and thus children must be ensured that legally until they are mature enough to do it for themselves (which is also the argument for allowing/banning abortion). I guess that the issue now becomes even if there is a general consensus, we still see a lot of these cases going before judges and ethics panels. Therefore, relating back to OP's scenario, would it all fall in place fast enough to save a minor in pediatric arrest? I don't think so.

As has been stated multiple times, and as per the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations for dealing with that exact scenario, emergencies are treated differently by the law, courts, and anyone with common sense. In a life threatening time sensitive emergency nothing needs to be in place - you treat first, while in parallel obtaining LE/court assistance.

 

[TheLocalMedic]

As has been stated multiple times, and as per the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations for dealing with that exact scenario, emergencies are treated differently by the law, courts, and anyone with common sense. In a life threatening time sensitive emergency nothing needs to be in place - you treat first, while in parallel obtaining LE/court assistance.

Seconded. There is precedence for parents refusing or withdrawing care for their child, and even cases where a minor is granted the ability to make decisions about their own care, but those are not emergent scenarios. The parens patriae policy holds that the state has a vested interest in the wellbeing of children, and as state-licensed paramedic or EMT you must also carry out that interest. Which means that in an emergent situation, even if the parents try to prevent you, you have the obligation to provide life saving treatment until such time as the court allows you to stop.

It's not as though the parent can say, "He's mine! I'll do with him as I please!" and then allow their child to die. Parents do not have the right to harm their child, and preventing their child from receiving care is harmful. Q.E.D.

 

[mycrofft]

OK it seems in the OP scenario the parents are in the wrong, the responders are right legality speaking. (Precedent is also in place from cases where care was wrongfully withheld just because a parent or guardian was not to be found at the time, or they were dead).

I think the question is what will YOU or I do with real world constraints of time and the degree of resistance by the parents.

In any case, with the parents present, I'd want to be really sensitive about how aggressive I was versus the likelihood of successful resuscitation. What is done in the name of street EMS (even more so in the hospital) would be considered four types of horrendous felony if the circumstances are wrong and/or the perp is not licensed.