Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Three decades after Baby Doe: how neonatologists and bioethicists conceptualize the Best Interests Standard

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study is to determine how neonatologists and bioethicists conceptualize and apply the Best Interests Standard (BIS).

Study Design:

Members of the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities and the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine were surveyed to determine how they conceptualized the BIS and ranked the appropriateness of forgoing life-sustaining therapy (LST).

Results:

Neonatologists’ median response supported an infant-specific BIS conceptualization that linked the infant’s and family’s interests. They did not support allowing limitations on the family’s obligations. Ethicists’ supported a conceptualization that linked the infant’s and family’s interests and limitations on the family’s obligations, a less infant-specific conceptualization. Ethicists were less or equally likely to agree with forgoing LST in seven of eight cases.

Conclusions:

Ethicists endorsed a conceptualization of the BIS that includes the effects on the family and rejected an infant-specific one. Neonatologists split between these two and rejected limiting the family’s obligations. Critical appraisal of the BIS is needed in neonatal ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kopelman LM, Irons TG, Kopelman AE . Neonatologists judge the ‘Baby Doe’ regulations. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 677–683.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Placencia FX, McCullough LB . The history of ethical decision making in neonatal intensive care. J Intensive Care Med 2011; 26: 368–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. The initiation or withdrawal of treatment for high-risk newborns. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Pediatrics 1995; 96: 362–363.

  4. Amendments to Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 USC §5106a (1984).

  5. US GPO President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment: A Report on the Ethical, Medical, and Legal Issues in Treatment Decisions. US GPO: Washington, DC, 1983.

  6. Stinson R, Stinson P . The Long Dying of Baby Andrew. Little, Brown & Co: Boston, MA, 1983.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by an NIH K23 grant and the Texas Children’s Hospital Bad Pants Fund.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F X Placencia.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Journal of Perinatology website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Placencia, F., Ahmadi, Y. & McCullough, L. Three decades after Baby Doe: how neonatologists and bioethicists conceptualize the Best Interests Standard. J Perinatol 36, 906–911 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.87

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.87

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links