The Agony of Phillip Becker: Parental Autonomy Versus the Best Interests of the Child

Abstract

For seven years, American courts have struggled to decide the fate of a boy who was born with Down’s syndrome. The internationally publicized case of Phillip Becker seemingly raised a stark issue: the power of absentee parents to deny their child not only life-prolonging medical treatment, but also any chance to live an emotionally satisfying life. At its bleakest juncture, Phillip’s case appeared headed for tragedy: a child in the grips of a strangling cyanotic illness, natural parents resistant to medical advice, a court judgment affirmed by the California Supreme Court endorsing the natural parents’ right to withhold treatment, and a prognosis that Phillip’s congenital heart defect might no longer be operable even if authorization for surgery could be obtained. By shifting the case’s focus from parental neglect to a child’s beneficial custody, Phillip’s advocates dramatically changed the legal, medical, and social outcomes for this youngster and his substitute family. This chapter describes the remarkable results of this case, and the discrimination it exposes. It is also a reminder that the concept of parental autonomy can lead to radical decisions of nonintervention that damage a child’s health, emotional development, and lifespan.