Are the 21-year-old baby doe rules misunderstood or mistaken?

Pediatrics

Volumn 115, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 797-802

  Kopelman, Loretta M ^a  

^a EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIBIOTIC AGENT;

BABY DOE RULE; BIOETHICS; CHILD CARE; CIVIL RIGHTS; COMA; COURT; DECISION MAKING; FUNDING; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; LAW; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MENINGITIS; NOTE; NUTRITION; PALLIATIVE THERAPY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREMATURITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REHYDRATION; RIGHT TO LIFE; SURVIVAL; TERMINAL DISEASE; UNCONSCIOUSNESS; ARTICLE; CHILD ABUSE; CHILD ADVOCACY; DEATH AND EUTHANASIA; HANDICAPPED CHILD; HISTORY; INFANT; INFORMED CONSENT; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL APPROACH; LEGAL ASPECT; NEONATOLOGY; NEWBORN; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PEDIATRICS; POLICY; STANDARD; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT WITHDRAWAL; UNITED STATES;

DEATH AND EUTHANASIA; LEGAL APPROACH;

BIOETHICS; CHILD ABUSE; CHILD ADVOCACY; CIVIL RIGHTS; DISABLED CHILDREN; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; INFANT, PREMATURE; MEDICAL FUTILITY; NEONATOLOGY; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; PEDIATRICS; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; THIRD-PARTY CONSENT; UNITED STATES; WITHHOLDING TREATMENT;

EID: 20344399427     PISSN: 00314005     EISSN: 00314005     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2004-2326     Document Type: Note

References (18)

1. Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap; procedures and guidelines relating to health care for handicapped infants - HHS. Final rules. Fed Regist. 1985;50:14879-14892
2. US Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. Pub L No. 42 USC 5101 et seq
3. Kopelman LM, Kopelman AE, Irons TG. Neonatologists judge the "Baby Doe" regulations. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:677-683
4. Kopelman LM, Kopelman AE, Irons TG. Neonatologists, pediatricians and the Supreme court criticize the "Baby Doe" regulations. In: Caplan AL, Blank RH, Merrick JC, eds. Compelled Compassion. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 1992:237-266
5. Bowen v American Hospital Association, 106 S Ct 2101 (1986)
6. Nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap; procedures and guidelines relating to health care for handicapped infants - HHS. Final rules. Fed Regist. 1984;49:1622-1654
7. US Rehabilitation Act, Pub L No. 93-112, 29 USC 794
8. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. Ethics and the care of critically ill infants and children. Pediatrics. 1996;98:149-153
9. Murray TH. The final anticlimactic rule on Baby Doe. Hastings Cent Rep. 1985;85(15):5-9
10. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. The initiation or withdrawal of treatment for high-risk newborns. Pediatrics. 1995;96:362-364
11. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. Guidelines on foregoing life-sustaining medical treatment. Pediatrics. 1994;93:532-536
12. National Hospice Organization. Standards of a Hospice Program of Care. Arlington, VA: National Hospice Organization; 1990
13. Kopelman LM. The best-interests standard as threshold, ideal and standard of reasonableness. J Med Philos. 1997;22:271-289
14. Grimes v Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. 782 A. 2d 807, 366 Md. 20 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001) at 853
15. Miller v HCA, 47 Tex. Sup. J 12, 118S.W. 3d 758 (2003)
16. Byock IR, Caplan A, Snyder L. Beyond symptom managements: physician roles and responsibilities in palliative care. In: Snyder L, Quill TE, eds. Physician's Guide to End-of-Life Care. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians, American Society of Internal Medicine; 2001
17. Reagan R. Abortion and the conscience of the nation. In: Butler JD, Walbert, DF, eds. Abortion, Medicine and the Law. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Facts on File; 1986:352-358
18. Koop CE. The challenge of definition. Hastings Cent Rep. 1989;19(1 suppl);2-3