Happy New Year!
During the downtime of the past week, I read a couple of interesting recent articles about whether courts should prevent parents from taking children abroad for unapproved “experimental” or “alternative” medical treatments.1 One of the most prominent legal cases in this arena was that of Charlie Gard, the British infant who was born with a severe genetic deficit. In 2017, his parents wanted to take him to the US for an experimental treatment but the hospital in the UK opposed the move and courts determined Charlie should be allowed to die with dignity in his home country.
The articles also reminded me of a recent situation where child protective services was very concerned that a parent was planning to take her daughter to a foreign country to undergo female genital mutilation (FGM), a practice deemed harmful under US and international law. Some states, including Tennessee, specifically include FGM as a form of serious child abuse. Those types of cases should be easy enough.
But what about alternative therapies not approved in the child’s home country? At what point should mandated reporters such as medical personnel make child maltreatment referrals regarding children whom parents want to take abroad for an experimental medical procedure? Birchley and his colleagues emphasize that some therapies may expose a child to excessive risks of harm. In otherwise terminal cases such as that of Charlie Gard, which trumps: the “right to try” or the right of the child to die with dignity?
The reported caselaw on this issue seems pretty scarce, at least in the US. When I sent the question out to a parent attorney’s list-serv I’m on, I received no responses from attorneys who had been involved in such cases. So I’ve put together a survey on the issue in hopes that you, reader, may know of cases like this. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity (and, I hope yours!). I’ll publish any findings I get back.
In other news you might’ve missed while enjoying your holiday feast:
David Hansell is retiring as head of New York City’s Administration for Children and Families and has some interesting thoughts on his tenure and advice for all of us in the field.
NPR did a story on federal laws encouraging states to collect child support from parents whose children are in foster care.
Dutch child advocates agree with me: in spite of Covid, children need to be in school.
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court gave us another reminder that while child protective service case managers may not wear badges, a CPS entry into a house is still a search and carries Fourth Amendment concerns.
Colorado advocates are pushing for a major overhaul of the state’s residential treatment facilities for children and youth.
As always, your feedback, comments, news items, and story ideas are appreciated!
Birchley et al, “Clinical Ethics: Medical Tourism in Children” (December 2021) 106 Archives of Disease in Childhood 1143; Bhatia and Birchley, “Medical Tourism and the Best Interests of the Critically Ill Child in the Era of Healthcare Globalization” (2020). 28(4) Medical Law Review 696;