Ben Garrett


Case of Ben Garrett: Cleft Lip and Palate[1]

Ben Garrett is an otherwise healthy 15-month-old boy born with a cleft lip and palate.  His mother left when he was just a few weeks old and Jordan has since been living with his single father, Mr. Garrett.  While he received he did receive standard vaccinations as an infant, Jordan did not pursue any other medical care for his son.  When Ben’s doctors brought up corrective surgery, Mr. Garrett would put off the conversation, saying “he’d think about it”.
Typically, corrective surgery is done between 6 weeks and 9 months to maximize the child’s ability to develop normal speech patterns.  Ben has already demonstrated speech difficulties, alongside other common effects of cleft lip and palate, including repeated ear infections and poor growth.  Doctors agree that while not ideal, Ben’s clinical prognosis without surgery is neither life-threatening nor severely disabling. He will, however, probably always have a noticeable speech impediment and have some minor trouble feeding. 
Concerned the child will soon be too old for surgery to have beneficial effects on Ben’s speech and growth, Ben’s physicians re-approach Mr. Garrett about corrective surgery at 15 months.  This time Mr. Garrett refuses outright, saying that prayer is much more effective at healing Ben than invasive surgery.   The risks of surgery are minimal to moderate with the only significant risk being a possible adverse reaction to anesthesia (5% chance of happening, but if it happens, it could be fatal for Ben).

Should the state intervene and mandate corrective surgery for Ben?


[1] Author: E.K. Salter, PhD (2013). 

Bernice Mettack


Case of Bernice Mettack[1]
Adolescent Refusing Blood Transfusion Against the Wishes of His Parents

Bernice is a bright, thoughtful and outgoing 17-year-old female.  When she was 15, she became a Jehovah’s Witness, despite her family’s skepticism.   She has been a committed and faithful member of the church since her conversion.   At age 17, Bernice is diagnosed with immune thrombocytopenia, an autoimmune disease that interferes with the blood’s ability to clot.  As a result, Bernice’s immune system is attacking its own platelets, causing a low platelet count.  For the first couple weeks, physicians treat Bernice’s disease with corticosteroids, which slow platelet destruction.   However, her condition continues to worsen and doctors decide a blood and platelet transfusion is the most effective mode of treatment.  Bernice’s parents agree to the transfusion, but Bernice adamantly objects claiming that if she accepts blood products she will be forfeiting eternal life.  The medication alone is expected to be 35% effective at treating Bernice’s thrombocytopenia effectively, with minimal side effects.  The blood transfusion is expected to be 90% effective at treating Bernice’s disease, with minimal side effects. 

Should the physicians follow Bernice, and treat her only using medication, or should they follow her parents and force Bernice to receive a blood transfusion, against her considered wishes? 


[1] Author: E.K. Salter, PhD (2013)

Colin Newmark


Case of Colin Newmark: Refusal of Chemotherapy for Lymphoma[1]


At three years old, Colin Newmark developed an aggressive and lethal form of pediatric cancer known as Burkitt’s Lymphoma.  Colin’s doctors recommended that Colin be treated with a heavy regimen of chemotherapy, stating that chemotherapy offered Colin a 40% chance at surviving at least eight more years.  Without chemotherapy, he would almost certainly die within one year.   His parents decided that instead of allowing an uncertain and painful medical treatment, they would take Colin home and seek prayer-healing through their church. 

Should the state intervene and compel chemotherapeutic treatment for Colin?



[1] Author: E.K. Salter, PhD (2013), based on court case Newmark v. Williams/DCPS, 588 A.2d1108 (1991).

Kevin Sampson


Case of Kevin Sampson[1]: Surgery for Neurofibromatosis

Kevin Sampson is a 15-year-old boy with neurofibromatosis (also known as “elephant man’s disease”) which manifested as a large, bag-like benign growth causing one side of his face to be twice as large as the other.  Kevin had fallen severely behind in school and functionally illiterate, in part because he had left school at an early age, finding the taunting of his classmates to be unbearable.  Kevin’s mother refused to consent to the surgical excision of his growth not based on the operation itself, but the high likelihood that Kevin would need blood products during the surgery, which her Jehovah’s Witness faith did not permit. 
            Kevin’s neurofibromatosis is not fatal and only causes mild to moderate clinical problems (head aches, balance problems).  However, his physicians are more worried about the relational and emotional (and indirectly, intellectual) issues caused by the growth.  Removal and reconstructive surgery carries a 95% success rate of both removing the growth and restoring a normal appearance (with a small scar). However, there is a small but significant risk of complications from anesthesia (5% chance of a fatal reaction).  There are no alternative treatments for the physicians to consider. 
            When asked, Kevin states that he is desperate to have the growth to be removed.  He is tired of being ridiculed and shunned.

Should the state intervene and compel surgical removal of Kevin’s growth?


[1] Author: E.K. Salter, PhD (2013). Based on In re: Sampson 278 N.E.2d 918, 1970.