Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap Relating to Health Care for Handicappped Infants, 48 Fed. Reg, 30846 (July 5, 1983).Google Scholar

Interim Final Rule, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap, 48 Fed. Reg. 9630 (March 7, 1983) (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. Part 84).Google Scholar

American Academy of Pediatrics v. Heckler, 561 F. Supp. 395 (D.D.C. 1983).Google Scholar

HHS Stands by “Baby Doe” Policy Despite Court's Ruling on Regs, American Journal of Nursing 83(6): 851 (June 1983).Google Scholar

Baby Doe Squad Advisor Says HHS was Insensitive, Science 220(4603): 1255 (June 17, 1983).Google Scholar

Evansville Couple Races Clock, Law to Save “Condemned” Baby, Evansville Courier, April 15, 1982, at 1.Google Scholar

Discriminating Against the Handicapped by Withholding Treatment or Nourishment; Notice of Health Care Providers, 47 Fed. Reg. 26027 (June 16, 1982).Google Scholar

Gustafson, J.M., Mongolism, Parental Desires, and the Right to Life, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 16(4): 529, 530 (Summer 1973).Google ScholarPubMed

Who Should Survive? produced by the Kennedy, Joseph P., Jr. Foundation, distributed by Lowengard & Brotherhood, Hartford, Conn.Google Scholar

Gath, A., The Impact of an Abnormal Child Upon the Parents, British Journal of Psychiatry 130:405 (1977).Google ScholarPubMed

Id.Google Scholar

Tew, B.J. Payne, H. Laurence, K.M., Must a Family with a Handicapped Child Be a Handicapped family? Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 16(Supp.32): 95 (1974).Google ScholarPubMed

Id. at 96.Google Scholar

Dorner, S., Psychological and Social Problems of families of Adolescent Spina Bifida Patients: A Preliminary Report, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 15(Supp. 29): 24 (1973).Google Scholar

Wortis, H.Z. Margolies, J.A., Parents of Children with Cerebral Palsy, Medical Social Work 4: 110 (January 1955).Google Scholar

Id. at 113.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Holroyd, J. Guthrie, D., Stress in Families of Children with Neuromuscular Disease, Journal of Clinical Psychology 35(4): 734 (October 1979); Mandelbaum, A. Wheeler, M.E., The Meaning of a Defective Child to Parents, Social Casework 41(7): 360 (1960); Hunt, G.M., Implications of the Treatment of Myelomeningocele for the Child and his Family, Lancet 2(7841): 1308 (December 8, 1973); Tew, B. Laurence, K.M., Mothers, Brothers and Sisters of Patients with Spina Bifida, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 15(Supp. 29): 69 (1973); Walker, J.H. Thomas, M. Russell, I.T., Spina Bifida — and the Parents, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 13(4): 462 (1971).Google ScholarPubMed

Shaw, A. Randolph, J.G. Manard, B., Ethical Issues in Pediatric Surgery: A National Survey of Pediatricians and Pediatric Surgeons, Pediatrics 60(4): 588 (October 1977). Similar results were reported in Todres, I.D., Pediatricians’ Attitudes Affecting Decision-Making in Defective Newborns, Pediatrics 60(2): 197 (1977).Google ScholarPubMed

Ethical Issues in Pediatric Surgery, supra note 18, at 590.Google Scholar

Id. at 593.Google Scholar

47 Fed. Reg. 26027 (June 16, 1982).Google Scholar

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, §504, 29 U.S.C. §794 (Supp. V 1981).Google Scholar

47 Fed. Reg. 26027 (June 16, 1982). See also Doudera, A.E., Editor's Note, Law, Medicine & Health Care 10(3): 142 (June 1982).Google Scholar

48 Fed. Reg. 30852 (July 5, 1983).Google Scholar

48 Fed. Reg. 30847 (July 5, 1983).Google Scholar

Maine Med. Ctr. v. Houle, No. 74-145 (Super. Ct., Cumberland County, Maine February 14, 1974), excerpt reprinted in Ethical Issues in Death and Dying (Weir, R.F., ed.) (Columbia Univ. Press, New York) (1977) at 185.Google Scholar

Id. at 186.Google Scholar

Id.Google Scholar

In re Application of Cicero, 421 N.Y.S.2d 965 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979).Google Scholar

Id. at 968.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Becker v. Schwartz, 386 N.E.2d 807 (N.Y. 1978); Park v. Chessin, 400 N.Y.S.2d 110, 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977); Speck v. Finegold, 408 A.2d 496, 508 (Pa. Super. 1979); Gildiner v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp., 451 F. Supp. 692 (E.D. Pa. 1978).Google Scholar

Berman v. Allan, 404 A.2d 8, 14 (N.J. 1979).Google Scholar

President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment (U.S. Gov't Printing Ofc., Washington, D.C.) (March 1983) at 218, 228–29.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Prince v. Massachusetts, 64 S.Ct. 438 (1944).Google Scholar

An example of such research would be the use of ultrasound to detect the presence and magnitude of cerebral hemorrhages. See, e.g., Partridge, J.D., Optimal Timing for Diagnostic Cranial Ultrasound in Low-Birth-Weight Infants: Detection of Intracranial Hemorrhage and Ventricular Dilation, Journal of Pediatrics 102: 281 (February 1983).Google ScholarPubMed

See, e.g., Taub, S., Withholding Treatment from Defective Newborns, Law, Medicine & Health Care 10(1): 4, 10 (February 1982); Jonsen, A.R., Critical Issues in Newborn Intensive Care: A Conference Report and Policy Proposal, Pediatrics 55(6): 756, 763–64 (June 1975); Robertson, J.A., Dilemma in Danville, Hastings Center Report 11(5): 5 (October 1981).Google ScholarPubMed

Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment, supra note 33, at 215.Google Scholar

Shatten, D.A. Chabon, R.S., Decision-Making and the Right to Refuse Life-Saving Treatment for Defective Newborns, Journal of Legal Medicine 3(1): 59, 72 (1982), citing Medical Care for the Child at Risk: On State Supervention of Parental Autonomy, Yale Law Journal 86: 645, 651 (1977).Google Scholar

See Veatch, R.M., Death, Dying and the Biological Revolution (Yale University Press, New Haven) (1976) at 131.Google Scholar