Literature DB >> 3344019

Neonatologists judge the "Baby Doe" regulations.

L M Kopelman1, T G Irons, A E Kopelman.   

Abstract

The federal regulations now in effect governing the treatment of severely handicapped infants--the so-called Baby Doe regulations--are based on the 1984 amendments to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act; these regulations require that, except under certain specified conditions, all newborns receive maximal life-prolonging treatment. We sent questionnaires to the 1007 members of the Perinatal Pediatrics Section of the American Academy of Pediatrics to determine their views on the Baby Doe regulations and on whether the regulations had affected their practices; 494 of the members (49 percent) responded. Of the respondents, 76 percent believed that the current regulations were not necessary to protect the rights of handicapped infants; 66 percent believed that the regulations interfered with parents' right to determine what course of action was in the best interest of their children; and 60 percent believed that the regulations did not allow adequate consideration of infants' suffering. In responding to the three hypothetical cases of severely handicapped newborns, up to 32 percent of the respondents said that maximal life-prolonging treatment was not in the best interests of the infants described but that the Baby Doe regulations required such treatment. The responding neonatologists' concerns about the current Baby Doe regulations were similar to those expressed by the United States Supreme Court in rejecting an earlier set of Baby Doe regulations. This similarity suggests that the current Baby Doe regulations should be reevaluated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3344019     DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198803173181105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  13 in total

1.  Why physicians should not do ethics consults.

Authors:  F H Marsh
Journal:  Theor Med       Date:  1992-09

2.  Morality in the valley of the moon: The origins of the ethics of neonatal intensive care.

Authors:  Albert R Jonsen
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2012-02-01

3.  Fundamental rights: comments on Medical Discrimination Against Children With Disabilities, a report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C.; 1989.

Authors:  H T Engelhardt
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  1991

Review 4.  Parental refusal of medical treatment for a newborn.

Authors:  John J Paris; Michael D Schreiber; Michael P Moreland
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2007

5.  Health care needs and services for technology-dependent children in developmental centers.

Authors:  L S Crain; D N Mangravite; R Allport; M Schour; K Biakanja
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1990-04

6.  Criteria for authorship in bioethics.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Zubin Master
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 11.229

7.  Prolonging life and allowing death: infants.

Authors:  A G Campbell; H E McHaffie
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 2.903

8.  Withholding and withdrawing life sustaining treatment in neonatal intensive care: issues for the 1990s.

Authors:  J D Lantos; J E Tyson; A Allen; J Frader; M Hack; S Korones; G Merenstein; N Paneth; R L Poland; S Saigal
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 5.747

9.  Two-Year Neurodevelopmental Outcome of an Infant Born at 21 Weeks' 4 Days' Gestation.

Authors:  Kaashif A Ahmad; Charlotte S Frey; Mario A Fierro; Alexander B Kenton; Frank X Placencia
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 7.124

10.  The ethics of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. II. Medical logistics and the potential for good response.

Authors:  J M Davies; B M Reynolds
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 3.791

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.