The moral status of the newborn and its implications for medical decision making

Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

Volumn 28, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 349-355

  Ross, Lainie Friedman ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Best interest standard; Decision making; End of life care; Infants; Neonates; Newborns

Indexed keywords

BIOETHICS; CHILD WELFARE; EDITORIAL; EUTHANASIA; HARM REDUCTION; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMED CONSENT; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; NEONATOLOGY; NEWBORN; NEWBORN CARE; NEWBORN INTENSIVE CARE; PALLIATIVE THERAPY; PARENTAL BEHAVIOR; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; TERMINAL CARE; TREATMENT WITHDRAWAL;

AGE FACTORS; CANADA; DECISION MAKING; DISABLED PERSONS; EUTHANASIA; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; MORAL OBLIGATIONS; NEONATOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; SOCIAL VALUES; TERMINAL CARE; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED STATES; VALUE OF LIFE; WITHHOLDING TREATMENT;

EID: 36749040821     PISSN: 13867415     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11017-007-9045-x     Document Type: Editorial

References (10)

1. Sophie's Choice was directed by Alan Pakula and was based on the book by William Styron. New York: Random House, 1979.
2. Annie Janvier, Isabelle LeBlanc, Keith J. Barrington, "No Justice for Premies," Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting, May 2, 2006, San Francisco CA. Abstract #5152.5; Annie Janvier, Isabelle Leblanc, and Keith J. Barrington, "The Child's Best Interest," Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting, May 2, 2005, SAN Francisco CA; 5121.4.
3. P.A. Lewis and M. Charny, "Which of Two Individuals Do You Treat When Only Their Ages Are Different and You Can't Treat Both?" Journal of Medical Ethics 15and Jennifer Jelsma et al., "Preferences of Urban Zimbabweans for Health and Life Lived at Different Ages," Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 80 (2002): 204-209. Nine studies published between 1989 and 1997 are summarized in Aki Tsuchiya, "Age-related Preferences and Age Weighting Health Bene.ts." Social Science and Medicine 48 (1999): 267-276.
4. Loretta M. Kopelman, "Children and Bioethics: Uses and Abuses of the Best-Interests Standard," Journal of Medicine & Philosophy 22 (1997): 213-7; Loretta M. Kopelman, "The Best-interests Standard as Threshold, Ideal, and Standard of Reasonableness," Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 271-89; Loretta M. Kopelman, "Rejecting the Baby Doe Rules and Defending a 'Negative' Analysis of the Best Interests Standard," Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (2005): 331-52; and Loretta M. Kopelman, "The Best Interests Standard for Incompetent or Incapacitated Persons of All Ages," Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35 (2007):187-96.
5. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment. Washington DC: U.S Government printing Office, 1983.
6. John J. Paris, Michael Schreiber, and Michael Moreland, citing John Robertson, "Extreme Prematurity and Parental rights after Baby Doe," Hastings Center Report, 34, no. 4 (2004): 32-39.
7. Committee on Fetus and Newborn, American Academy of Pediatrics, "Noninitiation on Withdrawal of Intensive Care for High-Risk Newborns," Pediatrics, 119 (2007): 401-403.
8. Eduard Verhagen and Pieter J.J. Sauer, "The Groningen Protocol - Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns" New England Journal of Medicine 352 (2005): 959-962.
9. John Lantos and William Meadow, Neonatal Bioethics: The Moral Challenges of Medical Innovation, Baltimore MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.
10. Ibid., p. 155.