Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

The “Emergent Circumstances” Exception to the Need for Consent: The Texas Supreme Court Ruling in Miller v. HCA

Journal of Perinatology volume 24, pages 337–342 (2004)Cite this article

The Texas Supreme Court has issued its long-awaited ruling in Miller v. HCA (Texas Supreme Court No. 01-0079 September 30, 2003) the case in which a Houston jury had awarded $60 million in real and punitive damages to a Texas couple whose 23-week, 615-g infant was resuscitated over the parents' objections. The state Supreme Court upheld the 2-1 finding of the 14th District Texas Court of Appeals (HCA v. Miller., 36 S.W. 3rd 195, 2000) that no battery or negligence occurred when the physicians resuscitated the infant. The Texas Supreme Court's ruling absolved the Hospital and its parent corporation Columbia HCA from any legal liability in the case. In doing so, it vacated the $60 million verdict.

The case arose in August, 1990 when approximately 4 months before her due date Kara Miller presented at Woman's Hospital of Texas in premature labor. Ultrasound revealed a 629 g infant of approximately 23 weeks gestation. Tocolytics were administered to stop the labor, but were discontinued when it was learnt the mother had a life-threatening infection. Labor inducing medications were then begun.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Paris JJ, Reardon F . Bad cases make bad law: HCA v. Miller is not a guide for resuscitation of extremely premature newborns. J of Perinatol 2001;21:541–544.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Paris JJ, Schreiber MD . Parental discretion in refusal of treatment for newborns: a real but limited right. Clin Perinatol 1996;23:573–581.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Studdent DM, Mello DM, Brennan TA . Medical malpractice. N Engl J Med 2004;350:283–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. Perinatal care at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics 1995;96:974–976.

  5. American Academy of Pediatrics. Perinatal care at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics 2002;110:1024–1027.

  6. Doran MW, Vaness-Meehan KA, Margelis LH, et al. Delivery room resuscitation decisions for extremely premature infants. Pediatrics 1998;162:574–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tyson JE, Younes N, Verton J, Wright L . Viability, morbidity, and resource use among newborns of 501–800 g birth weight. JAMA 1996;276:1645–1651.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Allen MC, Donahue PK, Dusman AE . The limits of viability — neonatal outcomes of infants born at 22–25 weeks' gestation. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1597–1601.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hack M, Friedman H, Fanaroff AA . Outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants. Pediatrics 1996;98:931–937.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hack M, Farnoff AA . Outcomes of extremely immature infants — a perinatal dilemma. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1649–1650.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Costeloe K, Hennessy E, Gibson A, et al. The EPICure study: outcomes to discharge from hospital for infants born at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics 2000;106:659–671.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Paris JJ, Bell AJ . Guarantee my child will be “normal” or stop all treatment. J Perinatol 1993;13:469–472.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Paris JJ . Quadruple Amputee Article. Get in C.V.

  14. Lantos J, Miles SH, Silverstein MD, et al. Survival after cardiopulmonary resuscitation in babies of very low birth weight. N Engl J Med 1988;318:91–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nuremberg Code. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10. Vol. 2:181–182. Washington, DC:US Government Printing Office; 1949.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Theology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, 02467, MA, USA

    John J Paris SJ, PhD

  2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Chicago Children's Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA

    Michael D Schreiber MD

  3. Hassan & Reardon, Boston, MA, USA

    Frank Reardon JD

Authors
  1. John J Paris SJ, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael D Schreiber MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Reardon JD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paris, J., Schreiber, M. & Reardon, F. The “Emergent Circumstances” Exception to the Need for Consent: The Texas Supreme Court Ruling in Miller v. HCA. J Perinatol 24, 337–342 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211105

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211105

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links