Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Neonatal Euthanasia: Why Require Parental Consent?

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Dutch rules governing neonatal euthanasia, known as the Groningen Protocol, require parental consent for severely disabled infants with poor prognoses to have their lives terminated. This paper questions whether parental consent should be dispositive in such cases, and argues that the potential suffering of the neonate or pediatric patient should be the decisive factor under such unfortunate circumstances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Bioethics. 1995. Informed consent, parental permission and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 95(2): 314–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appel, J.M. 2000. English high court orders separation of conjoined twins. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28(3): 312–318. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2000.tb00678.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Appel, J.M. 2005. Defining death: When physicians and families differ. Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 641–642. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.011718.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bartholome, W. 1989. A new understanding of consent in pediatric practice, parental permission, and child assent. Pediatric Annals 18(4): 262–265.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brazier, M., and D. Arcard. 2007. Letting babies die. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 125–126. doi:10.1136/jme.2006.020099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohan, J.A. 2006. Judicial enforcement of lifesaving treatment for unwilling patients. Creighton Law Review 39: 849–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costeloe, K. 2007. Euthanasia in neonates: Should it be available? British Medical Journal 334: 912–913. doi:10.1136/bmj.39177.456481.BE.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D.S. 1994. Does "no" mean "yes"? The continuing problem of Jehovah's Witnesses and refusal of blood products. Second Opinion 19(3): 34–43.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dickens, B., et al. 1998. Dealing with demands for inappropriate treatment. Canadian Medical Association Journal 6: 817–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, R., and A.G.M. Campbell. 1976. On deciding the care of severely handicapped or dying persons: With particular reference to infants. Pediatrics 57: 487–493.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fell, J.M., and G.W. Rylance. 1991. Parental permission, information, and consent. Archives of Disease in Childhood 66(8): 980–981. doi:10.1136/adc.66.8.980.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frith, M. 2004. Doctors can withhold sick boy’s life saving treatment. The Independent 23 October.

  • Kuther, T. 2003. Medical decision-making and minors: Issues of consent and assent. Adolescence 38: 343.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manninen, B.A. 2006. A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: Exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol. Journal of Medical Ethics 32(11): 643–651. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.014845.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, J. 2007. “Euthanasia” doctor merits mercy. Sunday Times 8 July, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrick, J. 2003. Spiritual healing, sick kids, and the law: Inequities in the American healthcare system. American Journal of Law. Medical Ethics (Burlington, Mass.) 29(2/3): 269–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, P. 2007. An end of life quandary in need of a statutory response: When patients demand life sustaining treatment that physicians are unwilling to provide. Boston College Law Review. Boston College. Law School 48: 433–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1944. 321 US 158.

  • Roser, M.A. 2007. Boy’s short life to have lasting impact. Austin American Statesman 21 May, B1.

  • Sceper, T.M., and S.A. Duursma. 1994. Euthanasia: The Dutch experience. Age and Ageing 23: 3–8. doi:10.1093/ageing/23.1.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatman v. Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center, Court of Appeals of Tennessee. 2001.

  • Tierney, H. 2002. Conjoined twins: The conflict between parents and the courts over the medical treatment of children. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 30: 458–476.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Urquhart, F. 2007. Consultant calls for debate to clear up end-of-life decisions. The Scotsman 12 July, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhagen, E., and P. Sauer. 2005. The Groningen Protocol—Euthanasia in severely ill newborns. The New England Journal of Medicine 352: 959–962. doi:10.1056/NEJMp058026.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York University, 140 Claremont Ave #3D, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Jacob M. Appel

Authors
  1. Jacob M. Appel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob M. Appel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Appel, J.M. Neonatal Euthanasia: Why Require Parental Consent?. Bioethical Inquiry 6, 477–482 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9156-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9156-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation