David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (4):331 – 352 (2005)
Two incompatible policies exist for guiding medical decisions for extremely premature, sick, or terminally ill infants, the Best Interests Standard and the newer, 20-year old "Baby Doe" Rules. The background, including why there were two sets of Baby Doe Rules, and their differences with the Best Interests Standard, are illustrated. Two defenses of the Baby Doe Rules are considered and rejected. The first, held by Reagan, Koop, and others, is a "right-to-life" defense. The second, held by some leaders of the American Academy of Pediatrics, is that the Baby Doe Rules are benign and misunderstood. The Baby Doe Rules should be rejected since they can thwart compassionate and individualized decision-making, undercut duties to minimize unnecessary suffering, and single out one group for treatment adults would not want for themselves. In these ways, they are inferior to the older Best Interests Standard. A "negative" analysis of the Best Interests Standard is articulated and defended for decision-making for all incompetent individuals.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
B. Andrew Lustig (2005). Challenging "Common-Sense" Assumptions in Bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (4):325 – 329.
Similar books and articles
Jacob Paroush (1997). Order Relations Among Efficient Decision Rules. Theory and Decision 43 (3):209-218.
M. Cathleen Kaveny (2002). Conjoined Twins and Catholic Moral Analysis: Extraordinary Means and Casuistical Consistency. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12 (2):115-140.
Douglas Diekema (2004). Parental Refusals of Medical Treatment: The Harm Principle as Threshold for State Intervention. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 25 (4):243-264.
Loretta M. Kopelman (2007). Using the Best Interests Standard to Decide Whether to Test Children for Untreatable, Late-Onset Genetic Diseases. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):375 – 394.
Helga Kuhse (1986). Death by Non-Feeding: Not in the Baby's Best Interests. [REVIEW] Journal of Medical Humanities and Bioethics 7 (2):79-90.
Loretta M. Kopelman & Arthur E. Kopelman (2007). Using a New Analysis of the Best Interests Standard to Address Cultural Disputes: Whose Data, Which Values? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (5):373-391.
Jacqueline J. Glover & Cindy Hylton Rushton (1995). Introduction: From Baby Doe to Baby K: Evolving Challenges in Pediatric Ethics. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 23 (1):5-6.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #189,864 of 1,700,233 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #362,609 of 1,700,233 )
How can I increase my downloads?