Calm down – I’m just stating an opinion. If there needs to be a tie breaker in these types of decisions, then it should be the parent that the court ruled as the primary custodian. Of course, that person should keep the other parent in the loop and all decisions discussed, but in the end, if there is conflict, divorced parents can’t afford to go to court every time something comes up that can’t be agreed upon.

Personally, I’d weigh all the options, then do what, in my educated opinion, I thought was best for my child. If surgery could be avoided, then great! If not, then a surgery would be scheduled at the earliest possible convenience.

BTW – my ex really is crazy. Just ask anyone who knows him!

A child needs surgical or medical help or will die.

One of the parents approves the life-saving procedure.

The other is out of touch (on a secret SEAL mission, running silent in a nuclear submarine, off hunting in a cell phone dead zone or without a cell phone, in a coma from the same accident which harmed the minor, whatever might put him or her out of touch for 20 minutes or more) and can not possibly give consent.

The doctors are forbidden to treat without permission from both so nothing is done.

The child dies with help at hand and wanting to act, but forbidden.

This way is better.

(My grandfather came upon a wreck. A woman was gurgling blood. A black man in a suit was standing watching, saying over and over,
“It’s a shame. It’s just a shame.”

When Grandpa asked, he explained he was a surgeon from Chicago and could save her but the crowd would lynch him if he touched the white woman.

Grandpa pulled his 38.

“I’m a US Deputy Marshal. You take care of the woman. I’ll take care of the crowd.”

He did and they all lived.)

David for good judges
and people who care

as for the unreasonableness of the man… if a doctor said your kid’s tonsils had to come out, but a 2nd doctor said they were inflamed but not such a risk as to need removal… which would you choose, especially when the risks of surgery you consider to be too great?

drop the irrational and unreasonable labels on the guy – it was the mother who was scared to death and made a decision after misrepresenting the father’s wishes after the first surgery had been rescheduled.

in other words, the mom sweet-talked the doctor into setting up a 2nd surgery after dad had convinced the doc to reschedule the first surgery until they could get a 2nd opinion.

the mother acted out of near-panic and lied to a doctor to have a surgery on her kid that may not have been necessary.

would you have filed a lawsuit?

the conflicts between divorced parents contain too many possible points of disagreement for a policy of getting both parent’s approval – the hospital would have double liability if both parents had to agree – creating a situation where the hospital would be on the hook for malpractice every time it cared for children of divorced parents.

in short, if you look at the 4th paragraph of the article, beginning with the words “but the appeals-court panel found…” – the court decided correctly.

knowing that mom lied about having the dad’s permission doesn’t really make him unreasonable or irrational, does it?