In the Michigan Court of Appeals: In the Matter of AMB, a Minor.
HOLDING: In the accelerating rush to judgment that occurred here, a series of legal errors and missteps following a preliminary hearing compounded what was already an excruciatingly difficult and complex situation. The record strongly suggests that no one involved in the protective proceeding had ever communicated directly with baby AMB's parents and only the testifying doctor had ever seen AMB, an infant with life-threatening disabilities. Thus, a duly enacted statutory process designed to protect individual rights, to allow the intelligent exercise of these rights, and to assure balanced and considered decision making became, instead, the opposite. There was such a relentless disregard for basic principles of law that in its opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals attempted to assure that this tragedy is never repeated in that state.
Bostrom
Barry A
BA
D000015:Abnormalities, Multiple; D003657:Decision Making; D005066:Euthanasia, Passive / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005260:Female; D006776:Hospitals, Pediatric / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D015931:Intensive Care, Neonatal / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D007872:Legal Guardians; D008020:Life Support Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008824:Michigan; D020458:Third-Party Consent
Death and Euthanasia; Legal Approach