[TO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR. " ] Six, — The letter of Lord
Hugh Cecil reminds me of a case that was before me not long ago. A child of eight suffered from adenoids, and the Medical Officer to the Education
Authority induced the parents to consent to an operation, which was duly performed. The effects of this operation were not satisfactory, and the medical officer again urged the parents to have the child submitted to a second operation, to which the father declined to give his consent. The assistant medical officer (a lady) induced the mother to have the child removed to the Infirmary whilst the father was at his work. On his return home be did not go forthwith and demand the return of his child, but acquiesced in what had been done rather than make any fuss. The operation was performed and the child died under the anaesthetic. But for the father's acquiescence in what he considered practically a fait accompli, the case would most certainly have been manslaughter, and as it is it lies very close to the boundary of that crime. If the father's rights over his child had not been wantonly dis- regarded the child would probably be now alive.—I am, Sir,
Previous page
