PEDIATRICS Vol. 42 No. 6 December 1968, pp. 1012-1013
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gleason, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Gleason, D.

Footprinting for Identification of Infants

Doris Gleason 1

1 Medical Record Research Bureau, 211 E. Chicago Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60611

Newspaper reports of the finding and return to its parents of a newborn baby kidnapped August 28, 1968, from a Port Arthur, Texas, hospital point out clearly the part footprints taken at time of baby's birth played in positively identifying the baby found 2 days later as the baby kidnapped. Footprinting of newborn infants in the delivery room is a routine procedure in this hospital and thus imprints were available when the need arose.

Fortunately for all concerned, the administrator and physicians of this hospital realized that the conclusion reached by the authors performing the study of footprinting reported in the January 1966 issue of Pediatrics1 was due entirely to the use of improper footprinting techniques.