Baby doe redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: A cautionary note on normative neonatal practice

Pediatrics

Volumn 116, Issue 4, 2005, Pages

  Sayeed, Sadath A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Death and dying; Decisionmaking; Ethics; Extremely preterm infants; Health policy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD ABUSE; CHILD CARE; CHILD WELFARE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LAW; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; NEWBORN ASSESSMENT; NEWBORN CARE; PALLIATIVE THERAPY; PREMATURITY; PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT WITHDRAWAL;

FETAL VIABILITY; HUMANS; INFANT CARE; INFANT, NEWBORN; INFANT, PREMATURE; NEONATOLOGY; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; WITHHOLDING TREATMENT;

EID: 33749415485     PISSN: 00314005     EISSN: 00314005     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2005-1590     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Connolly C. Doctors are warned on fetus care. Washington Post. April 23, 2005:A.07
2. HHS pledges thorough enforcement of Born-Alive Act. April 27, 2005. Available at: www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/26/212935.shtml. Accessed August 16, 2005
3. Pub L No. 107-207, 116 Stat 926 (2002)
4. Connolly, supra
5. 42 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq
6. Lorenz JM. Ethical dilemmas in the care of the most premature infants: the waters are murkier than ever. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2005;17:186-190
7. Stenberg v Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597 (2000)
8. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, Report together with additional and dissenting views of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 107th Congress, 1st Session (2001), August 2, 2001. 1-38, 3. (Purpose and Summary)
9. Id at 34 (additional views)
10. Id.
11. Boyle D, Carlo WA, Goldsmith J, et al. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-207. Pediatrics. 2003;111:680-681
12. Arkes H. Unheralded Good: The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. National Review Online. July 31, 2002. Available at: www.nationalreview.com/comment/ comment-arkes073102.asp. Accessed August 16, 2005
13. PubMed [database online]. Bethesda, MD: National Library of Medicine. Search conducted on May 13, 2005, using the terms "Born-Alive Infant Protections Act."
14. Three returned citations include Connolly, supra; Romesberg TL. Futile care and the neonate. Adv Neonatal Care. 2003;3:213-219;
15. and Arkes H. On the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2000. Hum Life Rev. 2000;26:15-26
16. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, supra at 28 (statement of Representative Melvin Watt at business meeting of Committee on the Judiciary)
17. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, supra at 38 (dissenting views)
18. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, supra at 34 (additional views)
19. Center for Medicaid and State Operations/Survey and Certification Group. Interaction of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Baltimore, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; April 22, 2005. Ref: S&C-05-26;
20. and Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and Families. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Requirements and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Baltimore, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; April 22, 2005. Log No. ACYF-CB-PI-05-01
21. 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd (1994)
22. Center for Medicaid and State Operations/Survey and Certification Group. Interaction of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Baltimore, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; April 22, 2005. Ref: S&C-05-26
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Id.
26. 42 C.F.R. 489.24 (October 1, 2004 Ed.)
27. Boyle, supra
28. In re Baby K, 16 F. 3rd 590 (4th Cir. 1994). See also emtala.com. Bryan v University of Virginia - the Fourth Circuit retrenches on Baby K. Available at: www.emtala.com/bryan.htm. Accessed August 16, 2005
29. Bryan v University of Virginia, 95 F. 3rd 349 (4th Cir. 1996). See also Harry v Marchant, 291 F. 3rd 767 (11th Cir. 2002)
30. Compare with Lopez-Soto v Hawayek, 175 F. 3d 170 (1st Cir. 1999)
31. Burks v St Joseph's Hospital, 223 Wis. 2d 265, 588 N.W. 2d 927, 929 (1999)
32. Preston v Meriter Hospital, 678 N.W. 2d 347 (Wis.App. 2004)
33. Id. at 356 (citing Lopez-Soto v Hawayek, 175 F. 3d 170 [1st Cir. 1999])
34. Id. at 356-357
35. 42 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq. See also Montalvo v Borkovec, 647 N.W. 2d 413, 419 (Wis.App. 2002)
36. 42 U.S.C. 5101(g) (1994)
37. Kopelman LM. Are the 21-year old Baby Doe rules misunderstood or mistaken? Pediatrics. 2005;115:797-802
38. Developments in the law. Medical technology and the law. IV. Neonatal treatment decisions. Harv Law Rev. 1990:1584, 1591.
39. See also, MacDonald H; American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Perinatal care at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics. 2002;110:1024 -1027; and 42 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq
40. 45 C.F.R. § 1340.15 (1989)
41. Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and Families. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Requirements and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; April 22, 2005. Log No. ACYF-CB-PI-05-01
42. Id. (from text of Instruction; italics are in the original)
43. Developments in the law, supra at 1592
44. eg, Miller v HCA, Inc., 118 S.W. 3d 758, 771 (Tex. 2003)
45. Montalvo v Borkovec, 647 N.W. 2d 413 (Wis.App. 2002)
46. Id. at 418
47. Id. at 419
48. Miller v HCA, Inc., 118 S.W. 3d 758 (Tex. 2003)
49. Paris JJ, Schreiber MD, Reardon F. The "emergent circumstances" exception to need for consent: The Texas Supreme Court in Miller v HCA. J Perinatol. 2004;24:337-342; see also Lorenz, supra
50. Boyle, supra
51. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, supra at 13 (Background and Need for Legislation).
52. Id. at 7-8
53. Id. at 13
54. Id. at 34 (additional views)
55. Id. at 26-27 (statement by Rep. Nadler)
56. Id. at 34-35 (quoting testimony of Dr Watson Bowes before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 12, 2001)
57. Singer NJ. Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction. 6th ed. Eagan, MN: West Publishing Co; 2001;
58. see also Legislative Intent Service. Authority and procedure for judicial consideration of legislative history and intent. Available at: www.legintent.com/Judicial%20Procedure.pdf. Accessed August 16, 2005
59. Connecticut Nat'l Bank v Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed. 2d 391 (1992); see also Robinson v Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997)
60. Lopez-Soto v Hawayek, 175 F. 3d 170, 176 (1st Cir. 1999)
61. People v Ledesma, 16 Cal. 4th 90, 95, quoting People v Peiters (1991) 52 Cal. 3d 894, 898-899
62. Pub L No. 107-207, 116 Stat 926 (2002)
63. Lopez-Soto v Hawayek, supra at 173
64. Pub L No. 107-207, 116 Stat 926 (2002)
65. Peerzada JM, Richardson DK, Burns JP. Delivery room decision-making at the threshold of viability. J Pediatr. 2004;145:492-498
66. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, supra
67. Rhoden NK. Treatment dilemmas for imperiled newborns: why quality of life counts. South Calif Law Rev. 1985;58:1283; see also Kopelman, supra; Developments in the law, supra; and Paris, supra
68. Montalvo v Borkovec, supra at 421
69. Id.
70. Miller v HCA, Inc., supra at 768; see also Montalvo v Borkovec, supra at 419
71. Montalvo v Borkovec, supra at 420
72. 'Lectric Law Library Lexicon. Statutory construction/interpretation. Available at: www.lectlaw.com/def2/s104.htm. Accessed August 16, 2005
73. Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, supra at 37 (dissenting views)
74. Annas GJ. Extremely preterm birth and parental authority to refuse treatment - the case of Sidney Miller. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2118
75. Developments in the law, supra at 1584
76. Developments in the law, supra at 9-11