The Baby Doe Regulations (BDR) regulate provision of life-sustaining treatment to seriously ill neonates. In 2020, the Trump administration expanded upon these through the Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children (EO-PVNIC). Neonatologists were surveyed in 1988 to determine their opinions on the regulations. We sought to compare views of neonatologists from 1988 and 2021 in relation to three hypothetical cases and about the impact of the BDR and to evaluate perceptions of the EO-PVNIC.
We modified and distributed the 1988 survey to members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Neonatal Perinatal Medicine. We used Chi-squared tests to compare responses in 1988 to responses in 2021.
We received 445 survey responses. Neonatologists today felt less compelled to provide aggressive care to the hypothetical patients, felt less constrained by the regulations, and were more likely to report that parental wishes would impact their actions.
There have been shifts in neonatologists’ perceptions of the Baby Doe Regulations toward less aggressive medical treatment for seriously ill neonates and more shared decision-making. Further research is required to identify how practices have been impacted over these decades.
Neonatologists in the 1980s largely objected to the Baby Doe regulations, fearing the regulations would restrict their ability to provide optimal care to seriously ill neonates.
Though still in place, current perceptions of these and newer regulations are unknown.
Perspectives on the Baby Doe regulations have changed since their enactment and with the addition of newer, more restrictive regulations.
Neonatologists today may favor less aggressive management in the face of poor prognosis.
Neonatologists may also favor more shared decision-making now as compared to the past.
Your institute does not have access to this article
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.15 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Rebagliato, M. et al. Neonatal end-of-life decision making: physicians’ attitudes and relationship with self-reported practices in 10 European countries. JAMA 284, 2451–2459 (2000).
U.S. Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Amendments of 1984, Public Law 98-457. 42 USC § 5102 (1984).
Kopelman, L. M. Why the Capta’s Baby Doe Rules should be rejected in favor of the Best Interests Standard. GA State Univ. Law Rev. 25, 7 (2012).
Placencia, F. X., Ahmadi, Y. & McCullough, L. B. Three decades after Baby Doe: how neonatologists and bioethicists conceptualize the Best Interests Standard. J. Perinatol. 36, 906–911 (2016).
Exec. Order No. 13952, “Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children.” (2020).
Kopelman, L. M., Irons, T. G. & Kopelman, A. E. Neonatologists judge the Baby Doe Regulations. N. Engl. J. Med. 318, 677–683 (1988).
Diekema, D. S. & Botkin, J. R. Forgoing medically provided nutrition and hydration in children. Pediatrics 124, 813–822 (2009).
Montalvo v. Borkovec, 647 N.W.2d 413 (2002).
Kett, J. C., Olszewski, A. E., Diekema, D. S., Wilfond, B. S. & Wightman, A. A 2020 Executive Order that threatens progress in shared decision-making. Pediatrics 147, e2020038794 (2021).
Gerdfaramarzi, M. S. & Bazmi, S. Neonatal end-of-life decisions and ethical perspectives. J. Med. Ethics Hist. Med. 13, 19 (2020).
Schneider, K., Metze, B., Bührer, C., Cuttini, M. & Garten, L. End-of-life decisions 20 years after Euronic: neonatologists’ self-reported practices, attitudes, and treatment choices in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. J. Pediatr. 207, 154–160 (2019).
Placencia, F. X. & McCullough, L. B. The history of ethical decision making in neonatal intensive care. J. Intensive Care Med. 26, 368–384 (2011).
Richards, C. A. et al. Physicians perceptions of shared decision-making in neonatal and pediatric critical care. Am. J. Hosp. Palliat. Med. 35, 669–676 (2018).
Orfali, K. Parental role in medical decision-making: fact or fiction? A comparative study of ethical dilemmas in French and American neonatal intensive care units. Soc. Sci. Med. 58, 2009–2022 (2004).
Rolstad, S., Adler, J. & Rydén, A. Response burden and questionnaire length: is shorter better? A review and meta-analysis. Value Health 14, 1101–1108 (2011).
Berman, D. M., Tan, L. & Cheng, T. L. Surveys and response rates. Pediatr. Rev. 36, 364–366 (2015).
Cunningham, C. T. et al. Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 15, 1–8 (2015).
McFarlane, E., Olmsted, M. G., Murphy, J. & Hill, C. A. Nonresponse bias in a mail survey of physicians. Eval. Health Prof. 30, 170–185 (2007).
Johnson, T. P. & Wislar, J. S. Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. JAMA 307, 1805–1806 (2012).
No funding was secured for this study.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All participants provided informed consent prior to study participation.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Polidoro, E., Weintraub, A.S. & Guttmann, K.F. Federal regulations and neonatologists’ views on care of seriously ill infants: changes over time. Pediatr Res (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-022-02105-9
Pediatric Research (2022)