By BRIAN GAAR Tribune-Herald staff writer

In a case that has garnered widespread attention, attorneys argued in front of the Texas Supreme Court over the legality of resuscitating a prematurely-born infant as the court convened at the Baylor University Law School Wednesday.

Attorneys for the parents of Sidney Miller, who is blind and mentally retarded, contend the Millers should have been allowed to withhold treatment from their child, while a Houston hospital countered that its employees were obligated to do otherwise.

There was an overflow crowd outside the 140-seat advocacy courtroom of the new Sheila and Walter Umphrey Law Center to hear the proceedings. Many more packed a nearby room to watch the hearing via closed-circuit television.

At the heart of the matter was the question of who had the authority to decide whether or not to resuscitate Sidney, who was born on Aug. 17, 1990, at Women’s Hospital in Houston.

She was more than four months premature and doctors said she could suffer a variety of impairments as a result.

The Millers gave oral instructions, 11 hours before the birth, that no "heroic" measures should be performed to save the child. The doctors noted it in medical records, but later told the family that it was the hospital's policy to resuscitate any baby born that weighed more than 500 grams. The fetus's weight had been estimated at 629 grams. The hospital asked Mark Miller, the father, to sign a consent form allowing resuscitation. He refused.

Upon Sidney's delivery, doctors used a throat tube to pump oxygen into her body.

The family says the treatment resulted in brain hemorrhaging that left Sidney severely disabled and needing round-the-clock care. Hospital officials say the disabilities resulted from “massive internal injuries” unrelated to resuscitation.

The Millers sued the hospital and its parent company, Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., for negligence and battery. Despite the hospital’s claims that it was doing its duty, a Harris County jury awarded the Millers $60 million.

That judgment was overturned by an appeals court, which said the parents could refuse treatment only if the baby’s condition were terminal.

The Millers want the court to reinstate the trial court ruling that the hospital was negligent and award the monetary judgment.

David Keltner, the Miller's attorney, told the Texas Supreme Court that Sidney had no fetal abnormalities or stress before birth and the family was told that resuscitation would result in severe disability. There was a chance that Sidney may have lived without resuscitation, he said.

He argued that state and common law allowed the Millers to withhold treatment for an infant. Under the Texas Family Code, parents have “the right to consent” to a child’s medical care.

"It's not about opting for certain death," Keltner said. "That's not the facts of this case."

He noted that several times since her birth, the parents have intervened to save Sidney's life, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"No one has a greater interest in disabled rights than the Millers do, because they face that fact daily," Keltner said.

Mike Hatchell, the appeals attorney for the Nashville, Tenn.-based HCA, countered that under the Texas Family Code, a child has the right to life-saving treatment.

Though parents have a right to consent to medical care, the code also says that a “living human” born after a premature birth “is entitled to the same rights, powers and privileges as are granted by law.”

In addition, Hatchell argued that there were emergency circumstances prompting the doctor to act in order to save the child's life.

In Texas, there is a command to treat children in need of emergency medical care and the Family Code entitles a patient to be treated, he said.

After being repeatedly asked if emergency treatment procedures would apply since parents denied consent, Hatchell said a state hospital has a "vital interest" in preserving life.

Keltner claimed in a rebuttal that the birth didn't constitute an emergency situation.

While laws in most states are vague on the issue, the decision could affect several similar cases elsewhere, medical experts say.

After the hearing, an emotional Mark Miller, father of the child, said he was pleased to have his day in court, but said "nothing the Supreme Court can do can make my child well."

Miller and his wife Karla have paid more than $1 million in health care expenses for Sidney, he said.

John Adams, clerk of the court, said a final ruling will be handed down in the coming months, but didn't estimate when. The justices will deliberate for a short time after the arguments, then have a full conference later in Austin.

This is the second time that the nine justices have been at the Baylor Law School. The first visit was in 1998.

The Texas Supreme Court is the last stop for civil cases. Justices began convening outside of Austin in 1998 after the passage of a constitutional amendment allowing justices to convene anywhere in the state. They have since convened at every Texas law school.

The court includes two Baylor alumni, Justice Priscilla Owen, who graduated from Baylor Law School in 1977, and Chief Justice Thomas Phillips, who was Baylor undergraduate student.

Baylor law students lined up along with handicapped protesters and interested onlookers to watch the oral arguments.

Jennifer Adams, one of the students, said it was the first time she'd witnessed such a proceeding and called it a great experience.

Both Adams and Chris McHam, another student, said the arguments seemed similar to moot court competitions that law school students participate in.

Baylor Law School Dean Brad Toben called the sitting a "huge success" and noted the quality of the oral presentations by the advocates, calling it a good lesson for students.

"I was real pleased with all the interest in that case," Toben said. "It's always a pleasure to arrange for an event like this and see that it draws the pointed attention of so many."

The Associated Press contributed to this report. Brian Gaar can be reached at 757-5741 or at bgaar@wacotrib.com