End-of-life medical decision-making for children in custody: A collaborative, multi-stakeholder practical approach

Parents have a constitutionally-protected, fundamental right to make decisions concerning the health and well-being of their children, afforded by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, parental rights are not absolute, and may be curtailed after a finding of parental "unfitness" including perpetration of egregious child abuse/neglect. Court intervention may be necessary to assert "parens patriae" authority to protect a child's well-being. Disagreements over medical care for a child (particularly when parent maltreatment resulted in life-altering clinical conditions and parents are suspected of perpetrating abusive injuries) often pose conflicts of interest. End-of-life decision-making involving abuse perpetrators may be influenced by self-interest, due to potential for escalation of criminal charges.

Discuss medico-legal decision-making for children in child welfare custody using a detailed case example involving a child near-fatally, abusively injured by his parents; review of relevant case law/national legal precedents; and clinical policy statements guiding end-of-life decision-making for pediatric patients.

Using an exploratory, quasi-qualitative approach, perceived experiences of purposefully-selected taskforce members identified key themes that informed a care de-escalation protocol, implemented across the state.

Key themes included coordinated communication, expedited legal proceedings, and balancing child's best interest (the right not to suffer for a prolonged period of time or sustain complications) with parents' rights and due process concerns, and informed protocol development.

Practicable guidance established in the protocol can be theoretically adapted at the local level to address the complexity inherent in end-of-life decision-making for children in custody.