I think there is no negligence, If the consent was maid and were signed by the parents, I think the parents are well informed of cutting the baby's hair on the head. its just that either the baby is not strong enough to withstand the medication (potent antibiotic, third generations) or suffered some major complication of sepsis (blood infection). the issue is not because of the hair being cut. at the moment your child has the chance to live, it wont really matter if the hair would be cut or not. in the first place the medications would not be given if the site (vein in the head which is relatively bigger) is not clean (hair harbours lot of germs). it should be shaved. with the comment of expressodoc that it should have been administered intra osseusly (in the bones), i think is rather unacceptable at the moment. giving medications in the bones takes time to be absorbed. and the baby is suffering in blood infection and it needs no delay. it should be administered directly in the veins, into the blood.. the baby need a site which is direct acting. In respect with the parents, I can see they are in anger stage towards acceptance..