Treatment of Disabled Infants

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 572-572
Author(s):  
PAUL F. WEHRLE
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Services ◽  
Medical Professionals ◽  
Health And Human Services ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Baby Doe ◽  
The Government ◽  
Role Of Parents ◽  
Seriously Ill

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.

A Tragic Epidemic

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-318
Author(s):  
WILLIAM C. VAN OST
Keyword(s):  
Drug Abuse ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Human Services ◽  
Chemical Dependency ◽  
Medical Professionals ◽  
Psychosocial Effects ◽  
Health And Human Services ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
The Us

To the Editor.— Whenever discussion of the destructive psychosocial effects of chemical dependency emerges among medical professionals, a controversy invariably follows. Too often, discussion turns into debate, anger overcomes reason, and strong feelings are judged to be too emotional. A sad commentary about the majority of our profession is the abrogation of responsibility, leaving the major concern in the field of alcohol/drug abuse to the care of other health professionals.1-5 For those who require documentation of the belief, which I fully share, that chemical dependency can be successfully prevented and treated, I refer them to the recent "breakthrough" article by MacDonald6 as well as publications of the US Department of Health and Human Services.7,8

A Neonatologist Looks at the Baby Doe Rule: Ethical Decisions by Edict

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 428-429
Author(s):  
CAROL LYNN BERSETH
Keyword(s):  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Human Services ◽  
Surgical Repair ◽  
Federal Funding ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Telephone Number ◽  
Health And Human Services ◽  
Ethical Decisions ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Baby Doe

Controversy and public attention has swirled around the recent Jane Doe case and the recent "Baby Doe" Rule issued by Secretary of Human Services Margaret Heckler.1 Jane Doe was an infant born with congenital esophageal atresia and Down's syndrome. The child's parents and physician chose to defer surgical repair of the child's esophageal anomaly. The child's anomaly precluded provision of enteral nutrition. No parenteral nutrition was provided, and the child died 6 days later. Several months later, Secretary Heckler of the Department of Health and Human Services issued a directive stating that hospitals receiving federal funding must display on a sign a telephone number by which anonymous observers could report parents or physicians who were witholding medical treatment or food from defective newborns.

The Decision to Forgo Life-Sustaining Treatment for Seriously III Newborns

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 572-573
Author(s):  
JAMES E. STRAIN
Keyword(s):  
Human Services ◽  
Life Support ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Infants And Children ◽  
Health And Human Services ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Baby Doe ◽  
Life Sustaining Treatment ◽  
Support Treatment ◽  
Made In

The specter of government intervention in the care of handicapped infants has reappeared in the form of a new "Baby Doe" regulation issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. If nothing else, the regulation has caused us to reexamine the process by which decisions are made in the care of the handicapped. The outcome of the Academy's discussions with DHHS has major implications, not just for pediatricians and the infants and children we care for but for people of all ages. It's possible, if not probable, that the same rules will apply to the care of the elderly, especially in regard to the withdrawal of life support treatment, if the Baby Doe rule goes into effect.

Wisconsin Healthcare Ethics Committees

1997 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 288-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn S. Shapiro ◽  
John P. Klein ◽  
Kristen A. Tym
Keyword(s):  
Human Services ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Healthcare Ethics ◽  
Healthcare Organizations ◽  
Ethical Problems ◽  
Health And Human Services ◽  
The Past ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Baby Doe ◽  
The U.S

Over the past two decades ethics committees have proliferated in healthcare institutions across the country. Catalysts for this growth include the endorsement of ethics committees by the New Jersey Supreme Court in the Quinlan case, by the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical Research (“President's Commission”) in its report entitled Deciding to Forgo Life Sustaining Medical Treatment, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in its 1985 “Baby Doe” regulations, by numerous other courts in treatment decisionmaking opinions issued after Quinlan, and more recently by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO).

Beyond Politics: A Social and Cultural History of Federal Healthcare Conscience Protections

2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 620-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Parr
Keyword(s):  
Cultural History ◽  
Human Services ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Patient Access ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Health And Human Services ◽  
Proper Role ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
History Of

The day before the inauguration of his Democratic successor, President George W. Bush oversaw the promulgation of an administrative rule that extended “sweeping” new conscience protections to healthcare providers, one which would allow them to refuse to participate in or refuse to refer for medical services to which they morally or religiously object. Enacted in a funding regulation through the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), the rule – commonly called the Provider Conscience Regulation (“Regulation”) – purported to clarify and implement existing federal law; by its own terms; however, the Regulation pushed the boundaries of those laws, granting protections to a broader class of individuals and across a wider range of services. In so doing, the Regulation sought to resolve an ongoing tension between patient access and provider autonomy, yet it served to reignite a long-standing debate over the proper role of morals in medicine.

Letters to the Editor

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-455
Author(s):  
Frank Clark
Keyword(s):  
Child Abuse ◽  
Human Services ◽  
Letters To The Editor ◽  
Opportunity To Respond ◽  
Health And Human Services ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Legal Foundation ◽  
Abuse And Neglect ◽  
Baby Doe ◽  
State Child

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Dr Frader's comments. In particular, I would like to address his third concern. The last thing I would want is to add any further confusion to this issue. First, Dr Frader correctly notes that the origins of the 1984 Federal Child Abuse Amendments (FCAA) are different than the various state child abuse and neglect reporting statutes. The FCAA were explicitly passed to provide the substantive legal foundation upon which the Department of Health and Human Services could issue replacement regulations for the original Baby Doe rules.1

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document