Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (4):331 – 352 (2005)

Abstract
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)
DOI 10.1080/03605310591008487
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,756
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Assisted Suicide: Pro‐Choice or Anti‐Life?Richard Doerflinger - 1989 - Hastings Center Report 19 (1):16-19.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 14 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
62 ( #149,885 of 2,333,917 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #44,839 of 2,333,917 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes