Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T15:29:38.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Infancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2011

Alicia Ouellette
Affiliation:
Albany Law School
Get access

Summary

A newborn baby is a tiny bundle of potential whose arrival is often met with joy and wonder. The arrival of a baby born with a disability or a health condition that may result in disabilities can generate more complicated reactions. To be sure, some parents welcome a baby with disabilities with the same joy and wonder as they would any other child. Indeed some parents celebrate the arrival of a child with traits like deafness and achondroplasia as special blessings foretelling a life that will be enriched by the special trait. For many families, however, the realization that an infant has or might develop disabilities brings with it concern, fear, even grief. Whatever the parental reaction, the presence or potential for disability in an infant often means the need for medical decision making. Most decisions made for infants with disabilities are about routine matters, but some are quite literally a matter of life or death. As is evident in the case studies that follow, making decisions about when to use or refuse life-saving treatments for infants with disabilities can be wrenching regardless of parental or analytic perspective.

The law provides some guidance. The advent of the modern neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in the 1970s brought with it an ever-increasing ability to save the lives of babies facing life-threatening crises. As options for saving imperiled newborns increased, the public's interest in medical protocols that allowed babies to die also increased.

Type
Chapter
Information
Bioethics and Disability
Toward a Disability-Conscious Bioethics
, pp. 72 - 136
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Duff, Raymond S. & Campbell, A. G. M., Moral and Ethical Dilemmas in the Special-Care Nursery, 289 New Eng. J. Med. 890, 894 (1973)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaw, , et al., Ethical Issues in Pediatric Surgery: A National Survey of Pediatricians and Pediatric Surgeons, 60 Pediatrics588, 590, Table 4 (1977)Google ScholarPubMed
Lantos, John & Meadow, William, Neonatal Bioethics: The Moral Challenges of Medical Innovation, 70 (Johns Hopkins University Press 2009)Google Scholar
Sayeed, Sadath A., The Marginally Viable Newborn: Legal Challenges, Conceptual Inadequacies, and Reasonableness, 34 J. L. Med. & Ethics600 (2006)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conway, Craig A., Baby Doe and Beyond: Examining the Practical and Philosophical Influences Impacting Medical Decision-Making on Behalf of Marginally-Viable Newborns, 25 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 1097 (2009)Google Scholar
Winslade, William J., Personal Reflections on Extremely Premature Newborns: Vitalism, Treatment Decisions, and Ethical Permissibility, 25 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 931, 938 (2009)Google Scholar
Annas, George J., Extremely Preterm Birth and Parental Authority to Refuse Treatment – The Case of Sidney Miller, 351 New Eng. J. Med. 2118 (2004)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, Thomas H. & Caplan, Arthur L., Which Babies Shall Live? Humanistic Dimensions of the Care of Imperiled Newborns (Humana Press 1985)Google Scholar
Scott, Charity, Baby Doe at Twenty-Five, 25 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 801 et seq. (2009)Google Scholar
Miller, Geoffrey, Extreme Prematurity: Practices, Bioethics, & the Law (Cambridge University Press 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kipnis, Kenneth, Harm and Uncertainty in Newborn Intensive Care, 28 Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics393 (2007)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kipnis, Ken, Harm and Uncertainty in Newborn Intensive Care, 28 Theor. Med. Bioeth. 393, 393–12 (2007)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacobs, Harris C., The Texas Advance Directives Act – Is It a Good Model?, 33 Seminars In Perinatology384, 388 (2009)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, Martha A., Killing “the Handicapped” – Before and After Birth, 16 Harv. Women's L. J.79, 88 (1993)Google ScholarPubMed
Werth, James L., Concerns about Decisions Related to Withholding/Withdrawing Life-sustaining Treatment and Futility for Persons with Disabilities, 16 J. Disability Pol'y Stud. 31, 33 (2005)Google Scholar
Menzel, Paul T., Oregon's Denial: Disabilities and Quality of Life, 22 Hastings Center Rep., Nov.–Dec. 1992, at 21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenbaum, Sara, The Americans with Disabilities Act in a Health Care Context, inInstitute of Medicine: The Future of Disability in America 426 (Field, Marilyn Jane & Jette, Alan M. eds., National Academies Press 2007)Google Scholar
Gill, Carol J., No, We Don't Think Our Doctors Are Out to Get Us: Responding to the Straw Man Distortions of Disability Rights Arguments against Assisted Suicide, 3 Disability & Health J.31, 36 (2010)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Field, Martha A., Killing “The Handicapped” – Before and After Birth, 16 Har. Women's L. J.79, 100 (1993)Google ScholarPubMed
Crossley, Mary A., Medical Futility and Disability Discrimination, 81 Iowa L. Rev. 179, 182 (1995)Google Scholar
Peters, Philip G., When Physicians Black at Futile Care: Implications of the Disability Rights Laws, 91 Nw. U. L. Rev.798, 817 (1997)Google Scholar
Beauchamp, Tom L. & Childress, James F., Principles of Biomedical Ethics 167–8, 220–1, 278 (6th ed., Oxford University Press 2009)Google Scholar
Daar, Judith F., A Clash at the Bedside: Patient Autonomy v. a Physician's Professional Conscience, 44 Hasting L. J. 1241, 1248–9 (1993)Google Scholar
Bedell, Susanna E. et al., Survival after Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in the Hospital, 309 New Eng. J. Med. 569 (1983)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blackhall, Leslie J., Must We Always Use CPR?, 317 New Eng. J. med. 1281 (1987)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, William A. et al., Unsuccessful Emergency Resuscitation – Are Continued Efforts in the Emergency Department Justified?, 325 New Eng. J. Med. 1393 (1991)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taffet, George E., et al., In-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, 260 J. Am. Med. Ass'n2069 (1988)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahm, Lisa L., Medical Futility and the Texas Medical Futility Statute: A Model to Follow or One to Avoid?, 6 Health Law. 25 (2008)Google Scholar
Pope, Thaddeus M., Involuntary Passive Euthanasia in U.S. Courts: Reassessing the Judicial Treatment of Medical Futility Cases, 9 Marq. Elder's Advisor229 (2008)Google Scholar
Ouellette, Alicia R., Quill, Timothy, Swidler, Robert, Pope, Thaddeus Mason, & Dubler, Nancy, A Conversation About End-of-Life Decisionmaking, 14 NYSBA Health L.J., Fall 2009, at 91Google Scholar
Brody, Howard, Medical Futility: a Useful Concept?, inMedical Futility and the Evaluation of Life-Sustaining Interventions 1, 3 (Zucker, Marjorie B. & Zucker, Howard D. eds., Cambridge University Press 1997)Google Scholar
Tomlinson, Tom & Brody, Howard, Futility and the Ethics of Resuscitation, 264 J. Am. Med. Ass'n1276, 1278–1279 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Robert L. & Mayo, Thomas W., Resolution of Futility by Due Process: Early Experience with the Texas Advance Directives Act, 138 Annals Internal Med. 743 (2003)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fine, Robert L., Medical Futility and the Texas Advance Directives Act of 1999, 13 Baylor U. Med. Center Proc., April 2000, at 144, 146Google ScholarPubMed
Caplan, Arthur L., Editorial, Odds and Ends: Trust and the Debate over Medical Futility, 125 Annals Internal Med., Oct. 15, 1996, 688CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lantos, John D., & Meadow, William L., Neonatal Bioethics: The Moral Challenges of Medical Innovation 7 (Johns Hopkins University Press 2006)Google Scholar
Koch, Tom, The Difference That Difference Makes: Bioethics and the Challenge of “Disability”, 29 J. Med. & Phil. 697 (2004) (arguing the Peter Singer's utilitarian ethos is the dominant thread in a bioethics focused on autonomy)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koch, Tom, The Difference That Difference Makes: Bioethics and the Challenge of “Disability”, 29 J. Med. & Phil. 697, 700–703 (2004) (tracing theoretical roots of bioethics to Singer)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lantos, John & Meadow, William, Neonatal Bioethics: The Moral Challenges of Medical Innovation, 10, 92 (Johns Hopkins University Press 2006) (describing an approach of treating until the baby “declares self”)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Infancy
  • Alicia Ouellette
  • Book: Bioethics and Disability
  • Online publication: 07 June 2011
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978463.005
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Infancy
  • Alicia Ouellette
  • Book: Bioethics and Disability
  • Online publication: 07 June 2011
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978463.005
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Infancy
  • Alicia Ouellette
  • Book: Bioethics and Disability
  • Online publication: 07 June 2011
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511978463.005
Available formats
×