One thing about the
CNMC v. Brody case that bothered me was why the hospital would even bother to seek judicial permission to do something that they so clearly
already had the right to do. In CNMC’s November 3rd Complaint, it states that “[t]he issue in this case is whether . . . the parent’s wishes take precedent over hospital procedure.” But any declaratory judgment would be an unnecessary and superfluous restatement of CNMC’s rights and obligations.
I got the answer (I think) from CNMC’s motion to remand the case to the D.C. Superior Court after it had been removed by the parents to the U.S. District Court for D.C. The hospital asserts that it chose “not to intrude on the parent’s grief in so callous a fashion.”
On a separate note, in going through CNMC's motion to remand (which goes way beyond establishing the lack of the $75,000 amount in controversey necessary for diversity federal jurisdiction), I collected below several disparate reasons that CNMC asserts for why it wants to stop Motl Brody's ventilator and drugs:
- “[T]he hospital is regulated by certificates of need and governing bodies . . . . [I]t is a violation of our license and certificate of need.”
- “[T]o continue in any way is offensive to our license . . . .”
- “[T]o continue in any way is offensive to . . . good medical ethics . . . .”
- “[T]o continue in any way is . . . a deprivation of scarce and highly demanded resources . . . . ”
- “The decision of these parents puts other children at risk.”
- “[T]o continue in any way . . . defrauds such insurance as might exist . . . .”
- “[T]o continue in any way . . . is cruel to the parents and family . . . .”
- “[T]o continue in any way . . . eliminates any dignity this child has left.”
- “[N]urses . . . should be aiding the living . . . . The strain on the nurses and related personnel is difficult.”
- “The opinion of the physicians . . . is unified and consistent.”
- “[D]ivine intervention would happen whether the ventilator was on or off . . . . there is no jurisdiction over God”
One thing about the CNMC v. Brody case that bothered me was why the hospital would even bother to seek judicial permission to do something that they so clearly already had the right to do. In CNMC’s November 3rd Complaint, it states that “[t]he issue in this case is whether . . . the parent’s wishes take precedent over hospital procedure.” But any declaratory judgment would be an unnecessary and superfluous restatement of CNMC’s rights and obligations.
I got the answer (I think) from CNMC’s motion to remand the case to the D.C. Superior Court after it had been removed by the parents to the U.S. District Court for D.C. The hospital asserts that it chose “not to intrude on the parent’s grief in so callous a fashion.”
On a separate note, in going through CNMC's motion to remand (which goes way beyond establishing the lack of the $75,000 amount in controversey necessary for diversity federal jurisdiction), I collected below several disparate reasons that CNMC asserts for why it wants to stop Motl Brody's ventilator and drugs:
0 comments:
Post a Comment