Baby Doe and Beyond: Examining the Practical and Philosophical Influences Impacting Medical Decision-Making on Behalf of Marginally-Viable Newborns
Craig A. Conway, 25 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1097 (2009)
(An excerpt is below. To view the full text, please use Westlaw, Lexis, a law library or alternative source.)
Advances in technology and medical education in the past century have allowed doctors to save some of these extremely premature newborns who previously would have most certainly died. However, the philosophical, ethical, and legal concerns raised by attempting to preserve these infants are being weighed by an increasing number of decision makers. Whereas, prior to the 1970s, decisions regarding the infant’s treatment plan were primarily in the hands of the parents and physicians-that is no longer the case. What was once a private decision made by these grief-stricken parents with the advice of their physicians has since become a matter for the public domain. These fragile infant’s outcomes are now being debated by parents, *1098 physicians, hospital administrators and bioethics committees, legislators, courts, media outlets, and the general public. The current situation is less problematic when the decision-making agents are in agreement regarding the infant’s course of treatment. However, when disagreements arise, a once private heartbreak can now become a public controversy that lacks a single, agreed-upon agent for making the life and death care choices in the best interests of the newborn. Instead, a seemingly moral, ethical, and legal tug-of-war between the parties can erupt, each differently valuing the medical condition and care of the barely viable neonate whose potential quality of life is unknown.
