You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 138 No. 6, June 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLE
 This Article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

'Baby Doe' rules. There are alternatives

D. E. Johnson, T. R. Thompson, M. Aroskar and R. E. Cranford

The federal government's "Baby Doe" rule has elicited a strong negative response; however, a more constructive option for concerned health care providers would be to formulate reasonable alternatives to such rules. Such an alternative infant advocacy process has been developed within our community. This multistep process, which attempts to optimize individual patient care and provide public accountability, lists (1) six ethical propositions that ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the infant; (2) five decision-making principles that define physician and parent obligations and ensure that decisions are made only after careful thought; and (3) guidelines for committee review that ensure that decisions are reviewed in a manner that recognizes the rights of the child and the parents as well as society's interest in ensuring that the best decisions are made in matters of life and death.





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1984 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.