Read other letters about this article
What I find ironic is how Children's treated two different cases where parents requested "novel" treatments so very differently this past year.
In August 2006, Tina Carlsen was reported to CPS for refusing to go along with a Children's doctor's recommendation that her 10 month old son receive dialysis. She had told the doctor that she wanted time to get a second opinion and seek out alternative therapies instead of dialysis, which had not worked well for other members of her family. Even doctors agreed afterward that the infant's liver condition didn't present imminent danger.
The disagreement culminated in the mom's arrest for "kidnapping" her 10 month old son from Children's, where CPS and the doctor had scheduled surgery against her wishes. Ultimately, the hospital performed surgery on the baby while he was in state custody, and it has taken a tremendous financial and emotional toll on the family. (The incident was covered by Seattle Times and Seattle PI).
In light of that, Cowan's comment from the article about the power of parents to make medical decisions for their children seems really hypocritical. The fact that Ashley's parents were "articulate" and "assertive" -- i.e. that they had money and knew how to navigate the system their benefit -- is a big part of this story.
"Ashley cannot speak for herself, so someone must speak for her," Cowan explained. "Who is best suited to speak for this child? Is it those people who live with her day-to-day or is it some arbitrary outside body? You can't be sure that [the treatment] is a good thing to do. It has its merits. In the face of these, what I think you can say is that if the parents appear to be acting as loving advocates for their child and will deal with the consequences, it's OK to accede to their wishes. To say to this family, 'You are wrong, you can't have this procedure because we know what's better for you and your child for the rest of your life,' is an impossible thing for us to say."