Extreme Prematurity and Parental Rights after Baby Doe: The Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 Established the Norms for Treating Disabled Newborns, but They Did Not Address the Treatment of Premature Babies. Parents and Physicians Need a Framework for Decisionmaking. A Decision Handed Down Recently by the Texas Supreme Court Is a Step Forward

By Robertson, John A. | The Hastings Center Report, July-August 2004 | Go to article overview

Extreme Prematurity and Parental Rights after Baby Doe: The Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 Established the Norms for Treating Disabled Newborns, but They Did Not Address the Treatment of Premature Babies. Parents and Physicians Need a Framework for Decisionmaking. A Decision Handed Down Recently by the Texas Supreme Court Is a Step Forward


Robertson, John A., The Hastings Center Report


Contemporary ethical and legal norms hold that all human beings born alive should be treated equally, regardless of disability. Yet there is a strong sense that some lives are so diminished in capacity for interaction or experience that little good is achieved by providing medical treatments necessary to keep them alive. In addition, many persons believe that the parents who have the chief responsibility to provide care should have a dominant say in whether their children are treated. (1)

Before 1970, the question of whether to withhold treatment from such newborns was rarely contested. The ancient Spartan practice of exposing babies on hillsides and keeping those that survived had a contemporary counterpart in the common medical practice of simply not treating those born with major handicaps. As late as 1972, some doctors and parents thought it appropriate to withhold from children with Down syndrome or spina bifida surgery necessary for their survival. Noted pediatricians published articles in major medical journals reporting the withholding of life-saving treatment from infants with many kinds of disabilities. (2) Surveys of doctors showed that these practices were not exceptions. (3)

In the mid-1970s, the emerging discipline of bioethics began to question the ethics and legality of these practices even as they were publicized. Courts became more willing to order treatment over parental wishes, though neither a uniform response nor clear guidelines emerged. (4) It took the Baby Doe controversy of 1981 and the federal Child Abuse Amendments (CAA) of 1984 to produce a rough consensus about the norms and practices that would govern this area. (5) Since passage of the CAA, ethical and legal controversy over parental authority to withhold treatment from handicapped or disabled newborns, although still featured in bioethics courses and texts, has largely ceased.

Yet one aspect of the controversy was never directly resolved. Because the Baby Doe controversy had focused on infants with genetic and chromosomal anomalies, the extent to which the CAA norms might require changes in practices with very premature and low birth weight infants remained open, even though it was occasionally mentioned in articles. (6) As a result, physicians and hospitals that insisted on treating premature newborns over parental objections were vulnerable to tort actions by parents. In January 1998, a Houston jury awarded $43 million in damages to parents whose daughter, born at twenty-three weeks and weighing 614 grams, was resuscitated and initially treated without their consent, leading to a life with severe mental and physical impairments. Texas appellate courts eventually reversed that decision, but in the five-year interim, hospitals and physicians faced the prospect of huge damage awards if they sought to treat cases of extreme prematurity in accordance with CAA standards against the parents' wishes. This article reviews the controversy and assesses the extent to which parents should have the right to decide not to treat severely premature newborns.

The Baby Doe Controversy

The Baby Doe controversy, which played such a key role in clarifying norms and practices in this area, arose in 1981 in Bloomington, Indiana. Parents of a newborn child with Down Syndrome and a trachealesophageal fistula refused to consent to a standard operation that would enable the child to take food and water by mouth. The hospital and doctors sought approval from a family court to perform surgery against the parents' wishes. A probate court denied the request on the ground that the parents had the right to make the decision. The child's guardian ad litem appealed the case unsuccessfully to the Indiana and then to the United States Supreme Court. While the case was pending, it drew wide media coverage and the attention of right-to-life and disability rights groups. Before the United States Supreme Court could rule on the guardian's appeal, Baby Doe died. …

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

Extreme Prematurity and Parental Rights after Baby Doe: The Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 Established the Norms for Treating Disabled Newborns, but They Did Not Address the Treatment of Premature Babies. Parents and Physicians Need a Framework for Decisionmaking. A Decision Handed Down Recently by the Texas Supreme Court Is a Step Forward
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.