Published online March 1, 2005
PEDIATRICS Vol. 115 No. 3 March 2005, pp. 797-802 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2326)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 ISI Web of Science (14)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kopelman, L. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kopelman, L. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Premature & Newborn

COMMENTARY

Are the 21-Year-Old Baby Doe Rules Misunderstood or Mistaken?

Loretta M. Kopelman, PhD

Department of Medical Humanities
Brody School of Medicine
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27858

Abbreviations: AAP, American Academy of Pediatrics

The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The current set of federal regulations about how to treat extremely ill, premature, or terminally ill infants <1 year of age, widely known as the "Baby Doe" rules, went into effect 20 years ago.1 They are amendments to the Child Abuse and Protection and Treatment Act, which are federal funding requirements for states to receive grants.2 Many neonatologists and other pediatricians reported that these rules immediately altered standards of care and limited clinicians’ and parents’ abilities to select individualized treatment plans and act in the best interests of infants.3,4 Their criticisms were akin to those of the courts5 in rejecting an earlier and similar set of Baby Doe regulations6 based on a Reagan-Administration interpretation of civil rights law.7

Yet, 20 years later these Baby Doe rules1 still stand, and so does the perceived support of them by the American Academy of Pediatrics because of comments by its leadership and Committee on Bioethics.8,9 These rules are inconsistent with other AAP guidelines recommending individualized decision-making by clinicians and families for seriously ill children based on the best-interests standard, or so I will argue.10,11 The choice between the Baby Doe rules and the best-interests standard is important, as a recent case conference may show. A family was faced with a decision about how to respond compassionately to their extremely premature and severely impaired newborn. In attendance were members of the parents’ extended family, including an aunt who was a hospice nurse and a cousin who was an adult pulmonologist. These 2 family members had extensive experience in caring for dying adults. The entire family agreed that given the infant’s poor prognosis and suffering intrinsic to his illness and treatments, it was in his best interest to have comfort care and to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatments. The 3 neonatologists present also agreed that this . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Address correspondence to Loretta M. Kopelman, PhD, Department of Medical Humanities, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, 600 Moye Blvd, Greenville, NC 27858. E-mail: kopelmanlo@mail.ecu.edu




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 PediatricsHome page
J. W. Kaempf and M. W. Tomlinson
Advocating for the Very Preterm Infant: In Reply
Pediatrics, July 1, 2006; 118(1): 430 - 432.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
L. M. Kopelman
Baby Doe Rules: In Reply
Pediatrics, December 1, 2005; 116(6): 1602 - 1603.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
I. Hurst
Baby Doe Rules
Pediatrics, December 1, 2005; 116(6): 1600 - 1601.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
J. E. Frader
Baby Doe Rules: In Reply
Pediatrics, December 1, 2005; 116(6): 1601 - 1602.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
L. B. McCullough
Neonatal Ethics at the Limits of Viability
Pediatrics, October 1, 2005; 116(4): 1019 - 1021.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
S. A. Sayeed
Baby Doe Redux? The Department of Health and Human Services and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002: A Cautionary Note on Normative Neonatal Practice
Pediatrics, October 1, 2005; 116(4): e576 - e585.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
L. M. Kopelman
Baby Doe Rules Have Been Interpreted and Applied by an Appellate Court: In Reply
Pediatrics, August 1, 2005; 116(2): 514 - 515.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
F. Clark
Baby Doe Rules Have Been Interpreted and Applied by an Appellate Court
Pediatrics, August 1, 2005; 116(2): 513 - 514.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
I. Hurst
First Rule: Choose Your Battles Wisely
Pediatrics, July 1, 2005; 116(1): 288 - 288.
[Full Text] [PDF]