Today science and medicine have the mechanisms via medical drugs, machines such as ventilators or respirators, and other medical resources to prolong life in the context of artificial extraordinary means until there is nothing else to introduce into the body and the patient dies. This case vividly demonstrates this use of extraordinary means and optimistic thought to sustain the life of M.W. Although M.W.’s condition improved at times it seems that it did not improve long enough to begin discharge planning to home. M.W.’s situation was very tentative which put the health care professionals in charge of M.W.’s care in an huge ethical quandary. The parents seem to have become emotionally and visibly absent in their hospital visits after a long period of experiencing the ups and downs of M.W.’s life. They also believed that God was in charge and hence, were reluctant to request the discontinuance of any medical means of sustaining M.W.’s life.

Nonetheless, the case gradually involves into one of pediatric medical futility or non-beneficial medical care. It is a profound pediatric ethical issue that needed immediate attention. For all concerned, including the parents, arguably, the meaning of “allowing one to die” or passive euthanasia needed to be discussed and discerned that would hopefully result in a good plan of action.  Furthermore, theological ethical principles such as human dignity, stewardship, and participation needed to be part of the ethical decision-making process.

For M.W. it must be made clear that the intent is not to directly kill this newborn infant, as in mercy killing or active euthanasia, but to allow M.W. to experience death with dignity by moving into palliative care and then hospice care setting. Clearly, the ongoing and seemingly non-beneficial medical treatment offered to M.W. affronted M.W.’s human dignity. M.W. appeared to have suffered profoundly through health care professionals’ continual medical interventions. Created in the image and likeness of God, M.W.’s inherent human dignity is of incomparable worth, which needed more focused attention in this case.

In terms of the principles of stewardship, it is important to note first and foremost that human life is incalculable and a price tag can never be attached to it. However, because health care goods are extremely expensive and too many times scarce, it is also vital that this principle be employed in the theological ethical analysis of this case. Indeed the health care providers witnessed periods of improvements with M.W., but overall M.W.’s condition seemed to be dire. The goods of health care should have been administered more wisely and in a discerning way. These goods are never to be employed so perpetually to prolong life, especially if medical signs demonstrate that the seemingly enduring treatment is non-beneficial, and especially if medical signs conveyed that more harm is being done over the ability for M.W. to thrive and to flourish.

The principle of participation is also key to this case, especially in finding creative, subtle, and/or overt ways to invite M.W.’s parents to participate in the discussion, discernment, and plan of action for M.W.’s medical care. It is unfair for parents who gradually have become visibly and/or emotionally absent from their infant’s care to push from a distance for everything to sustain life. The infant was in the dying process.  Furthermore, one needed to discuss with the parents their understanding of “what does it mean to do everything,” in tandem with a dialogue that is very informative and educational about pediatric futility, dying, and death as it relates to M.W.  Along with the hospital’s ethics committee, perhaps someone from pastoral care and social services needed to be present to engage with the parents and health care providers about this case.

In essence, I argue that the case of pediatric futility should have been handled differently so as not to continue non-beneficial treatment for M.W. I believe that a theological ethical analysis on this case would have allowed for deeper reflection, analysis, and dialogue concerning: 1.) M.W.’s human dignity, 2) the meaning of stewardship with respect to the use of scarce health care goods, and 3) the principle of participation where the parents should have had more opportunities to discuss what it means to “do everything” in light of the dire state and end of life condition of M.W. Furthermore distinguishing between what it means to directly kill someone as oppose to allowing one to die needed to be discussed with the parents.