Bad Medicine: Parents, the State, and the Charge of “Medical Child Abuse” ∗ Maxine Eichner † Doctors and hospitals have begun to level a new charge — “medical child abuse” (MCA) — against parents who, they say, get unnecessary medical treatment for their kids. The fact that this treatment has been ordered by other doctors does not protect parents from these accusations. Child protection officials have generally supported the accusing doctors in these charges, threatening parents with loss of custody, removing children from their homes, and even sometimes charging parents criminally for this asserted overtreatment. Judges, too, have largely treated such charges as credible claims of child abuse. ∗ Copyright © 2016 Maxine Eichner. Graham Kenan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law; J.D., Ph.D. I am grateful for comments from and conversations with an interdisciplinary group of readers: Alexa Chew, J.D.; Christine Cox, J.D.; Hannah Eichner; Keith Findley, J.D.; Victor Flatt, J.D.; Michael Freeman, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H.; Steven Gabaeff, M.D.; Mark Graber, M.D.; Heidi Harkins, Ph.D.; Clare Huntington, J.D.; Diana Rugh Johnson, J.D.; Joan Krause, J.D.; Michael Laposata, M.D., Ph.D.; Holning Lau, J.D.; Sue Luttner; Beth Maloney, J.D.; Loren Pankratz, Ph.D.; Maya Manian, J.D.; Rachel Rebouche, J.D.; Diane Redleaf, J.D.; Maria Savasta-Kennedy, J.D.; Richard Saver, J.D.; Jessica Shriver, M.A., M.S.; Adam Stein, J.D.; Eric Stein, J.D.; Beat Steiner, M.D., M.P.H.; Judy Stone, M.D.; Deborah Tuerkheimer, J.D.; Catherine Volponi, J.D; and Deborah Weissman, J.D. Special thanks are due to Sa’Metria Jones, Rebecca Mitchell, Margaret Petersen, and Elizabeth Robinson for their excellent research assistance, and to Dave Hansen, as well, for clutch librarian research assistance. † Dr. Mark L. Graber, M.D., FACP; President, Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine; Senior Fellow, RTI International; Professor Emeritus, Stony Brook University, contributed to Part IV.C of this Article, as well as to footnote 395 and accompanying text. Dr. Graber’s recent peer-reviewed publications include: Brian Hess et al., Blink or Think: Can Further Reflection Improve Initial Diagnostic Impressions?, 90 ACAD. MED. 112 (2015); Ashley Meyer, Hardeep Singh & Mark Graber, Evaluation of Outcomes From a National Patient-Initiated Second-Opinion Program, 128 AM. J. MED. 1138.25– 1138.e33 (2015); Hardeep Singh & Mark Graber, Improving Diagnosis In Health Care — The Next Imperative For Patient Safety, 373 NEW ENG. J. MED. 2493 (2015). 205 206 University of California, Davis [Vol. 50:205 Despite the rising number of parents faced with these charges, this phenomenon has received no critical attention whatsoever in legal literature. This law review article is the first to explain why, as a legal matter, medical child abuse charges are deeply and fundamentally flawed. It is certainly true that the (likely few) twisted parents who intentionally use the medical system to hurt their children have committed child abuse. Yet the broad definition of MCA developed by doctors captures within its diagnostic net many loving parents making the best decisions they can for their genuinely sick children. This article demonstrates that the broad definition of MCA developed by physicians and adopted within the child protection system violates the constitutional rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children. Meanwhile, the framing of MCA as a medical “diagnosis” turns what should be a legal decision regarding child abuse into a medical determination, in the process omitting important legal requirements. Finally, the loose diagnostic standards constructed to “diagnose” MCA rest on both flawed science and flawed medical standards. In short, the MCA theory developed by physicians and enforced by child protection officials is bad constitutional doctrine, bad law, bad science, and bad medicine. Any of these flaws in itself should be sufficient to bar the presentation of the theory of MCA in the courtroom. The presence of all these flaws leaves this conclusion beyond doubt. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 209 I. THE GENESIS OF MEDICAL CHILD ABUSE CLAIMS ...................... 214 A. The Rise and Fall of the Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy Diagnosis ................................................................ 214 B. The Rise of the Medical Child Abuse Diagnosis .................. 218 C. Medical Child Abuse Charges Today ................................. 228 II. BAD CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE: MEDICAL CHILD ABUSE CHARGES AND PARENTS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS .................. 239 A. Parents’ Constitutional Right to Make Health Care Decisions for Their Children .............................................. 240 B. The Broad Definition of Medical Child Abuse and Parents’ Constitutional Rights ......................................................... 245 III. BAD LAW: THE MEDICAL CHILD ABUSE “DIAGNOSIS” AND PARENTS’ RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL ............................................. 247 A. Child Abuse as a Legal Decision Rather than a Diagnostic Determination ................................................................... 249 1. Differential Diagnosis Versus Differential Etiology ... 249 2. “Diagnosing” the Parent as Abusive ........................... 252 2016] Bad Medicine 207 B. Child Abuse as the Ultimate Issue ...................................... 255 1. Medical Child Abuse and the Trier of Fact ................ 255 2. Medical Child Abuse and the Legal Standard for Child Abuse ................................................................ 257 a. Blameworthiness of the parent ............................... 257 b. Unreasonable risk to the child ............................... 259 c. Standard of proof ................................................... 260 C. Diagnosis as Profile Evidence ............................................ 261 IV. BAD SCIENCE AND BAD MEDICINE: THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL CHALLENGES TO THE MEDICAL CHILD ABUSE DIAGNOSIS ................................................................................ 265 A. The Scientific Validity of the General Medical Child Abuse Theory ..................................................................... 266 B. The Reliability of the Process of Diagnosing Medical Child Abuse in Particular Cases ........................................ 279 1. The Diagnostic Protocol for Medical Child Abuse .... 281 2. The Absence of Testing to Establish the Reliability of the Medical Child Abuse Diagnostic Protocol ....... 285 3. The Reliability of Individual Diagnostic Criteria ....... 287 a. Discrepancies between the parent’s account and the child’s medical records ..................................... 288 b. Absence of objective medical evidence of child’s symptoms .............................................................. 290 c. Use of multiple medical facilities/ discharge against medical advice ........................................... 291 d. Pediatrician determines child’s genuine medical diagnoses ............................................................... 292 e. Pediatrician’s judgment on overtreatment .............. 297 f. Use of profile evidence ........................................... 297 4. The Vagueness of the Diagnostic Criteria .................. 301 5. The Low Base Rate of Medical Child Abuse .............. 303 C. The Medical Child Abuse Diagnostic Process and Good Medical Practice ................................................................ 306 1. The absence of methodically chosen indicators ........ 306 2. The threshold of certainty for action on the diagnosis ..................................................................... 308 3. Due diligence in pursuing alternative diagnoses ....... 311 D. Case Study of the Unreliability of the Medical Child Abuse Diagnostic Process ................................................... 312 V. THE PROPER LEGAL TREATMENT OF CHILD ABUSE CASES INVOLVING MEDICAL CARE ...................................................... 314 208 University of California, Davis [Vol. 50:205 A. Parents’ Constitutional Right to Make Health Care Decisions for Their Child Absent Legally-Defined Abuse or Neglect .......................................................................... 315 B. Exclusion of Medical Child Abuse Diagnoses from Legal Proceedings for Child Abuse .............................................. 319 CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 320 2016] Bad Medicine 209 INTRODUCTION1 In February 2013, fourteen-year old Justina Pelletier was admitted to Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) for gastrointestinal issues.2 At that time, Justina was being treated by a well-respected Tufts University medical team for mitochondrial disease, a genetic disease that affects energy production.3 The Tufts team had recommended to her parents that she be admitted to BCH because her long-time gastroenterologist had recently transferred there.4 That gastroenterologist never got the chance to treat her, however. Without consulting the Tufts doctors, BCH doctors, led by a neurologist just months out of medical training, swiftly decided that Justina did not have mitochondrial disease, an illness with complex, sometimes disputed, diagnostic criteria.5 Instead, BCH declared her issues psychiatric in nature, and prescribed in-patient psychiatric care.6 When her parents disagreed and sought to transfer her care back to