Medical Discrimination against Children with Disabilities: A Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

By Shapiro, Robyn S. | Issues in Law & Medicine, Winter 1990 | Go to article overview

Medical Discrimination against Children with Disabilities: A Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights


Shapiro, Robyn S., Issues in Law & Medicine


In September of 1989, following a four year study, at a cost of one-half million dollars, the United States Commission on Civil Rights issued the final draft of its report entitled "Medical Discrimination Against Children with Disabilities."(1) The commission's aim was to "determine the nature and extent of the practice of withholding medical treatment or nourishment from handicapped infants and to examine the appropriate role for the Federal Government."(2) The commission's overall general finding was that "discriminatory denial of medical treatment, food, and fluids is and has been a significant civil rights problem for infants with disabilities."(3) Nonetheless, one cannot help but suspect that this conclusion is distorted because of (a) the commission's flawed data acquisition process, (b) the commission's inaccurate and misguiding assumptions about medical care of infants with disabilities, (c) the commission's inaccurate and misguiding assumptions about applicable law, and (d) the commission's naive and complete failure to consider the implications for the care of infants with disabilities if its recommendations were to be aggressively followed.

The Process of Data Acquisition

When the final draft of the commission's report was first presented in January of 1989, it did not contain any information whatever as to the rate of incidence of medical neglect of newborns with disabilities(4)--despite the fact that the commission's own announced purpose was to "determine the nature and extent of the practice of withholding of medical treatment or nourishment from handicapped infants."(5) Indeed, the report does not even include raw numbers on the total births and deaths of severely disabled infants in the United States. William B. Allen, chairman of the commission, has described this data collection process as "a certain kind of research incontinence."(6)

In addition to its failure to gather any data regarding the incidence of "medical neglect," the commission also refused to circulate its report among critics in advance of its finalization and release. The commission heard no testimony from an official representative of the American Medical Association or the American Academy of Pediatrics. And the report remarkably underrepresents criticism, which is abundant in the literature at large, about the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Baby Doe regulations and the subsequent regulations issued pursuant to the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984. Mr. Allen notes that when he proposed specifically that the draft report be sent out to interested parties for confidential comment, the drafting subcommittee flatly refused.(7)

The Commission's Assumptions About Medical Care of Infants with Disabilities

Perhaps the best illustration of the commission's failure to appreciate the medical realities surrounding the treatment of infants with disabilities is its discussion and endorsement of the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984.(8) Pursuant to these Child Abuse Amendments, Congress made federal funding to child protective service (CPS) agencies conditional on the extension of state child abuse programs and procedures to cover situations of medical neglect involving inappropriate withholding of treatment from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions. The act defines "withholding of medically indicated treatment" as "the failure to respond to the infant's life-threatening conditions by providing treatment (including appropriate nutrition, hydration, and medication) which, in the treating physician's or physicians' reasonable medical judgment, will be most likely to be effective in ameliorating or correcting all such conditions . . . ."(9) Three treatment exceptions are specified. Failure to provide treatment (other than appropriate nutrition, hydration, or medication) to an infant with disabilities is not "medical neglect" when the treating physician or physicians reasonably determine that:

(A) the infant is chronically and irreversibly comatose;

(B) the provision of such treatment would (i) merely prolong dying, (ii)

not be effective in ameliorating or correcting all of the infant's

life-threatening conditions, or (iii) otherwise be futile in terms of the

survival of the infant; or

(C) the provision of such treatment would be virtually futile in terms of

the survival of the infant and the treatment itself under such

circumstances would be inhumane. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Note: primary sources have slightly different requirements for citation. Please see these guidelines for more information.

Cited article

Medical Discrimination against Children with Disabilities: A Report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen
Items saved from this article
  • Highlights & Notes
  • Citations
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA 8, MLA 7, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Search by... Author
    Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.