The document discusses two cases involving disputes over the handling of deceased infants and the implications for family members. In the first case, a mother experiences trauma after finding her deceased baby's body improperly handled, raising questions about the patient-physician relationship regarding body disposal. The second case examines religious freedom when a mother refuses an autopsy for her son, highlighting the conflict between religious beliefs and laws that require postmortem examinations for determining causes of death.

1. 3 Law peer reviewed references needed.Answer the Discussion
Board board questions in paragraph form.
1. A premature infant was delivered at Woman’s Hospital by
the plaintiff. The child died shortly after birth, and the plaintiff
was assured by the floor nurse that the hospital would take care
of the infant’s burial. When the mother went to the obstetrician
for an examination six weeks later, she was given her folder to
hold while waiting for the physician. She found in it a note from
the pathologist about disposal of the baby’s body. When the
plaintiff asked the physician about the disposal of the body, he
instructed his nurse to take her to the hospital across the street
to see someone who would tell her what had been done with the
baby. When the woman and the nurse found the person, the
plaintiff was handed a large jar with the baby’s body inside. As
a result, the plaintiff suffered nightmares, could not sleep, was
depressed when she was around children, had surgery for a
pseudopregnancy, and required psychiatric treatment. Should a
patient–physician relationship include the contract to dispose of
a dead body?
2. The plaintiff’s 18-year-old son died suddenly at home. His
body was taken to the hospital, where the cause of death could
not be found without an autopsy. The deputy medical examiner
ordered a postmortem examination. The plaintiff was a member
of the Jewish Orthodox faith and refused the postmortem
examination of his son on the basis that religious conviction
prohibited any molestation of the body after death. Is freedom
of religion curtailed by a law that has a compelling state
interest?