PEDIATRICS Vol. 94 No. 1 July 1994, pp. 98-101
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters 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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clark, F. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Clark, F. I.

Intensive Care Treatment Decisions: The Roots of Our Confusion

Frank I. Clark MD, JD1

1 Department of Child Health, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO

Background. Decisions to withdraw or withhold treatment from infants and children are continuing concerns. Physicians voice confusion over perceived legal requirements. This confusion may lead to overtreatment of patients. Recent evidence suggests legal concerns still shape physician treatment decisions.

Objective. This study was undertaken to determine if the legal standard governing these medical decisions was clearly stated.

Design. Conventional legal research was performed. Because the 1984 Federal Child Abuse Amendments require these issues to be resolved by state laws, statutes of the 50 states and the District of Columbia were reviewed to ascertain if they would support a charge of child abuse for the inappropriate withdrawal of life-support from a child. An electronic legal database was queried for all cases involving withdrawal of life-support in children since 1984; the cases were analyzed to determine if judges were applying the federal legal standard.

Results. Current child abuse reporting laws would support the federal standard in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Six reported withdrawal cases were identified; none applied the federal standard. There is an emerging state legal standard that is flexible and subjective and allows a quality of life analysis because it is based on parental authority. This standard conflicts with the federal standard.

Conclusions. The current law is unclear because two competing legal standards coexist; physicians cannot simultaneously meet both standards. Choosing to apply the state legal standard in clinical medical practice should support families in times of stress and relieve physicians of the burden of considering who is potentially overtreated.

Submitted on August 2, 1993
Accepted on November 23, 1993




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CLIN PEDIATRHome page
B. H. Levi
Withdrawing Nutrition and Hydration from Children: Legal, Ethical, and Professional Issues
Clinical Pediatrics, March 1, 2003; 42(2): 139 - 145.
[PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
W. Meadow, L. Frain, Y. Ren, G. Lee, S. Soneji, and J. Lantos
Serial Assessment of Mortality in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit by Algorithm and Intuition: Certainty, Uncertainty, and Informed Consent
Pediatrics, May 1, 2002; 109(5): 878 - 886.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]