A Legal Analysis of the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984

  • James BoppJr
  • Mary Nimz
Chapter
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Biomedicine, Ethics, and Society book series (CIBES)

Abstract

In April 1982, a child called Baby Doe was born in Bloomington, Indiana with a surgically correctable, but life-threatening, condition that prevented oral feeding (Bopp, 1985). The child also had Downs syndrome (Bopp, 1985). Over objections from the child’s pediatricians, the mother’s obstetrician counseled the parents to refuse all care and treatment for the infant, including surgery to correct the feeding problem and all forms of food and water. The obstetrician testified that he had told the parents that they had the “alternative” of “do[ing] nothing” and the child would probably live only a matter of several days. The obstetrician based his recommendation on the belief that, even with successful surgery, the child would still have Downs syndrome and therefore “the possibility of a minimally adequate quality of life would be non-existent.”

Keywords

Clay Nickel Hydration Assure Mane 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics v. Heckler,561 F. Supp. 395 (D.D.C. 1983).Google Scholar
  2. American Hospital Association v. Heckler,585 F. Supp. 541 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).Google Scholar
  3. Annas, G. (1984) Ethics committees in neonatal care: Substantive protection or procedural diversion? Am. J. Public Health 74, 843–845.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barber v. People, 147 Cal. App. 2d 1006, 195 Cal. Rptr. 484 (1983).Google Scholar
  5. Bopp, J. (1985) Legal implications of medical procedures effecting the born, in Human Life and Health Care Ethics (University Publication of America, Frederick, MD), pp. 284–287.Google Scholar
  6. Bopp, J. and Balch, T. (1985) The Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 and their implementing regulations: A summary. Issues Law Med . 1, 91–130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowen v. American Hospital Association, 476 US 610 (1986).Google Scholar
  8. Child Abuse Amendments of 1984. 42 U.S.C.A. 5101–5103 (1984).Google Scholar
  9. Child Abuse Prevention Challenge Grants Reauthorization Act of 1989. 42 U.S.C.A. 5101–5117 (Supp. 1989).Google Scholar
  10. Congressional Record (1984a) 130:21,156.Google Scholar
  11. Congressional Record (1984b)130:21,153 (Joint Explanatory Statement by Principal Sponsors of Compromise Amendments Regarding Services and Treatment for Disabled Infants).Google Scholar
  12. Derr, P. (1986) Nutrition and hydration as elective therapy. Issues Law Med. 2 25–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. DHHS (1983a) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap. Interim Final Rule. 48 Fed. Reg. 9630.Google Scholar
  14. DHHS (1983b) Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention and Treatment Program. 45 Code Fed. Reg. 1340. 14,.15(b)(2)-(3)(ii), (c), Appendix.Google Scholar
  15. DHHS (1984a) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap, Procedures and Guidelines Relating to Health Care of Handicapped Infants. Final Rule 49 Fed. Reg. 1622 (codified at 45 CFR 84.55).Google Scholar
  16. DHHS (1984b) Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention and Treatments Programs. 49 Fed. Reg. 48,160.Google Scholar
  17. DHHS (1985a) Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention and Treatments Programs, Final Rules. 50 Fed. Reg. 14,878.Google Scholar
  18. DHHS (1985b) Services and Treatment for Disabled Infants; Model Guidelines for Health Care Providers to Establish Infant Care Review Committees. 50 Fed. Reg. 14,893.Google Scholar
  19. DHHS (1987) Office of Inspector General. Survey of Baby Doe Programs. GPO, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  20. Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary (1988) (W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia), pp. 363, 1785.Google Scholar
  21. Final Rules. 50 Fed. Reg. 14,878.Google Scholar
  22. Gerry, M. and Nimz, M. (1987) Federal role in protecting Babies Doe. Issues Law Med. 2 339–377.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. House Conference Report (1984) No. 1038, 98th Congress, 2d Session.Google Scholar
  24. In re Baby Girl Muller,No. 88–1073 (Hillsborough County Cir. Ct. Feb. 9, 1988).Google Scholar
  25. In re Conroy, 98 NJ 321, 486 A.2d 1209 (1985).Google Scholar
  26. In re Steinhaus, No. J-86–92 (Minn. Redwood County Ct., Juv. Ct. Div. Sept. 11, 1986) (Transcript, Oct. 6, 1986).Google Scholar
  27. In re Steinhaus, No. J-86–92 (Minn. Redwood County Ct., Juv. Ct. Div. Sept. 11, 1986), reprinted in Issues Law Med. 2 241–252.Google Scholar
  28. Levine, C. (1986) Confusion over the language of the Baby Doe regulations. Hastings Cent. Rep. 16, 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lynn, J. and Childress, J. F. (1983) Must patients always be given food and water? Hastings Cent. Rep. 13,17–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nerney, T. (1987) Telephone interview between Thomas Nerney, a disability rights advocate involved in Child Abuse Amendments negotiations,and coauthor Mary Nimz.Google Scholar
  31. Newman, S. A. (1989) Baby Doe, Congress and the states: Challenging the Federal Treatment Standard for impaired infants. Am. J. Law Med. 15,1–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Paris, J. J. and Fletcher, A. B. (1983) Infant Doe regulations and the absolute requirement to use nourishment and fluids for the dying infant. Law Med. Health Care 11,210–213.Google Scholar
  33. Senate Bill 1003 (April 1984a) Proposed Amendments from Senator Edward Kennedy’s Staff.Google Scholar
  34. Senate Bill 1003 (April 1984b) Proposed Amendments from the American Academy of Pediatrics.Google Scholar
  35. Senate Bill 1003 (April 1984c) Second Draft of Proposed Amendments from Senator Edward Kennedy’s Staff.Google Scholar
  36. Senate Bill 1003 (May 18, 1984) Senate Labor and Human Resources Staff Discussion Draft of Proposed Amendments.Google Scholar
  37. Senate Bill 1003 (May 22, 1984) Areas of Concern Regarding 5/18/84 Discussion Draft of Proposed Amendments.Google Scholar
  38. Senate Bill 1003 (June 7, 1984) Second Senate Labor and Human Resources Staff Discussion Draft of Proposed Amendments.Google Scholar
  39. Senate Bill 1003 (June 13, 1984) Memorandum Regarding Proposed Amendments to Senate Labor and Human Resources Staff from Jan Carroll, National Right to Life Committee, Richard Doerflinger, NCCB Committee for Pro-Life Activities, and, Doug Badger, Christian Action Council.Google Scholar
  40. Senate Bill 1003 (June 14, 1984) Memorandum re: Staff Response to Proposed Amendments to June 7 Discussion Draft of Amendments from Jan Carroll.Google Scholar
  41. Senate Bill 1003 (June 19, 1984) Memorandum to Staff/Organizations from Susanne Martinez.Google Scholar
  42. Senate Bill 1003 (June 25, 1984) Proposed Amendment by Medical Groups.Google Scholar
  43. Senate Report (1974) No. 1297. 93rd Congress, 2d Session, p. 38.Google Scholar
  44. Shapiro, R. and Barthel, R. (1986) Infant Care Review Committees: An effective approach to the Baby Doe dilemma? Hastings Law J. 37 827–862.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Silver, J. D. (1989) Baby Doe: The incomplete federal response. Family Law Q . 20 173–185.Google Scholar
  46. Strain, P. (1987) Bloomington to Here: A Brief History of the Baby Doe Regulation, Medical Neglect and the Disabled Infant: The Impact of the Baby Doe Regulation.Google Scholar
  47. Tampa Tribune. Jan. 30, 1988. 1B, col. 5.Google Scholar
  48. Tampa Tribune. Feb. 4, 1988. 12B, col. 1.Google Scholar
  49. Tampa Tribune. Feb. 10, 1988. 1B, col. 1.Google Scholar
  50. Todres, I., Guillemin, J., Grodin, M., and Batten, D. (1988) Life-saving therapy for newborns: A questionnaire survey in the state of Massachusetts. Pediatrics 81 643–649.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. United States Commission on Civil Rights (1989) Medical Discrimination Against Children with Disabilities, pp. 111–117, 127–129.Google Scholar
  52. United States v. Marion County School District, 625 F.2d 607 (5th Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
  53. United States v. University Hospital, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 575 F. Supp. 607 (E.D.N.Y. 1983).Google Scholar
  54. United States v. University Hospital, State University of New York at Stony Brook 729 F.2d 144 (2d Cir. 1984).Google Scholar
  55. University of Connecticut Health Center (1987) Pediatric Research and Training Center, National Collaborative Survey of Infant Care Review Committees in United States Hospitals, p. 6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • James BoppJr
  • Mary Nimz

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations