Neonatologists Judge the "Baby Doe" Regulations
Kopelman, Loretta M.
Irons, Thomas G.
Kopelman, Arthur E.
New England Journal of Medicine. 1988 Mar 17; 318(11): 677-683.
Questionnaires were sent to all members of the Perinatal Pediatrics Section of the American Academy of Pediatrics soliciting their views regarding the 1984 amendments to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (the "Baby Doe" regulations) and the effects, if any, on their practices. The regulations mandate maximal life-prolonging treatment except under specified conditions. The majority of the physicians who responded stated that the regulations are not needed to protect handicapped infants' rights, interfere with parental rights to consent to treatment, might enforce a poor use of resources, exert undue pressure on state agencies and physicians, and undermine the best-interest standard of care. The authors conclude that these views are similar to those expressed by the Supreme Court in rejecting an earlier version of the Baby Doe regulations and suggest that the current regulations be re-evaluated. (KIE abstract)
Allowing to Die; Attitudes; Case Studies; Child Abuse; Congenital Disorders; Consent; Decision Making; Evaluation; Federal Government; Financial Support; Government; Government Regulation; Infants; Life; Newborns; Parental Consent; Parents; Patient Care; Pediatrics; Physicians; Prematurity; Prognosis; Prolongation of Life; Questionnaires; Regulation; Resource Allocation; Rights; Selection for Treatment; Statistics; Suffering; Survey; Treatment Refusal; Withholding Treatment;
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.