Baby Doe regulations and medical judgment

1990 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 657-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glyn Y. York ◽  
Robert M. Gallarno ◽  
Reginald O. York
Keyword(s):  
Baby Doe ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Nelson Lund

AbstractInfanticide, like most other species of homicide, is probably coeval with the human race itself. In modern Western civilization, what were formerly the most powerful incentives to infanticide have virtually disappeared. As with other social problems that affluence has seemed to solve, however, infanticide has reappeared in a new form that seems to have been made possible by affluence itself. This "new infanticide" occurs in a place whose very existence is the result of a tremendously wealthy society's devotion to its most vulnerable and least “useful” members. The modern neonatal intensive care unit, which treats, and often saves, extremely ill newborn children, who during most of history would surely have died, has proven to be a setting where many of the age-old incentives for infanticide have begun to operate again. The “new infanticide” consists of withholding food or needed medical treatment from selected infants who suffer from one or more serious, though treatable, medical problems. The national government has now enacted legislation designed to curtail the practice of infanticide by the medical profession. This paper traces the genesis of that legislation, explores the problem to which it is addressed, and evaluates its prospects for success.


1993 ◽  
Vol 32 (03) ◽  
pp. 199-202
Author(s):  
T. Shimizu ◽  
T. Suzuki

Abstract:An economic evaluation of a medical checkup center (Ninngendokku, “human dry dock”) was conducted from two perspectives: the cost for cancer checkup, and the cost for medical treatment after a diagnosis was obtained. We studied the cost of diagnosing cancer, compared with the cost required when cancer of an individual organ was detected through mass health testing, and studied the economics of a Ninngendokku according to Kawai’s method of medical judgment. Assuming that the cost of death is more than the cost of saving the lives of persons who undergo the Ninngen-dokku, the Ninngen-dokku will be affordable. In the group undergoing the Ninngen-dokku compared with the group which did not, the estimated cost of medical treatment was reduced. The Ninngendokku carries advantages that cannot be quantified in financial terms; therefore, a multi-layered economic analysis of the Ninngen-dokku was required.


Author(s):  
J.D. Sánchez López ◽  
J. Cambil Martín ◽  
F. Luque Martínez
Keyword(s):  

1987 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 89-94
Author(s):  
William B. Weil

Some of the difficulties of obtaining surrogate decisions that are in the children's best interests, the extension of this problem to the newborn period, and the political and social derivatives of these difficulties have been reviewed. The 1984 child abuse and neglect amendments have been summarized and their impact on the care of newborns has been discussed. The outcomes of this entire process have been described and the potential extension of these issues to the prenatal period has been mentioned. Although not everything that has transpired or will transpire as the result of the Baby Doe issue is salutary, it seems likely that the care of newborn infants has changed and will continue to change, and these changes will ultimately impact on medical care for everyone.


1988 ◽  
pp. 126-131
Author(s):  
George J. Annas
Keyword(s):  

BMJ ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 329 (7479) ◽  
pp. 1405.1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Borja ◽  
Esther Donado ◽  
Mario Souto

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 18-19
Author(s):  
Ginno Alessandro De Benedictis-Serrano ◽  
Carlos Miguel Rios-González

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 572-572
Author(s):  
PAUL F. WEHRLE

In Reply.— I am concerned that the Academy's position on treatment decisions regarding seriously ill newborns may have been construed to be one in alliance with the government's hard-line stand on interventionism and insistence upon treatment. It has always been our position that neither the government nor the courts should interfere in decisions best made by parents in consultation with medical professionals. The Academy is as committed to this concept today as it was when it first challenged the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and successfully struck down the first "Baby Doe" rule which ignored the role of parents in this critical decision-making arena.


Who Decides? ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 380-386
Author(s):  
Nat Hentoff
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document