PEDIATRICS Vol. 97 No. 4 April 1996, pp. 579-583
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 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.

Making Sense of State v Messenger

Frank I. Clark MD, JD1

1 Department of Child Health, University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65212

On April 30, 1994, Gregory Messenger was charged with manslaughter for physically disconnecting his premature son from a ventilator.1 He was acquitted of these charges on February 2, 1995. Although appellate courts have dealt with various aspects of withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment (LSMT) in infants,2 State v Messenger raised the issues involved when this support is not desired by the parents at the time of birth. This case sets no precedent for future cases on this point. There is no appeal of a criminal case when the defendant prevails; therefore, for lawyers and judges it will remain just another trial court loss for a prosecutor.

Submitted on April 6, 1995
Accepted on May 25, 1995




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Med. EthicsHome page
M. L Gross
Avoiding anomalous newborns: preemptive abortion, treatment thresholds and the case of baby Messenger
J. Med. Ethics, August 1, 2000; 26(4): 242 - 248.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]