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.

Federal regulations and neonatologists’ views on care of seriously ill infants: changes over time

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Impact

  • 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

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. U.S. Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Amendments of 1984, Public Law 98-457. 42 USC § 5102 (1984).

  3. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Exec. Order No. 13952, “Executive Order on Protecting Vulnerable Newborn and Infant Children.” (2020).

  6. Kopelman, L. M., Irons, T. G. & Kopelman, A. E. Neonatologists judge the Baby Doe Regulations. N. Engl. J. Med. 318, 677–683 (1988).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Diekema, D. S. & Botkin, J. R. Forgoing medically provided nutrition and hydration in children. Pediatrics 124, 813–822 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Montalvo v. Borkovec, 647 N.W.2d 413 (2002).

  9. 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).

  10. Gerdfaramarzi, M. S. & Bazmi, S. Neonatal end-of-life decisions and ethical perspectives. J. Med. Ethics Hist. Med. 13, 19 (2020).

  11. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Placencia, F. X. & McCullough, L. B. The history of ethical decision making in neonatal intensive care. J. Intensive Care Med. 26, 368–384 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Berman, D. M., Tan, L. & Cheng, T. L. Surveys and response rates. Pediatr. Rev. 36, 364–366 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cunningham, C. T. et al. Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 15, 1–8 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson, T. P. & Wislar, J. S. Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. JAMA 307, 1805–1806 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was secured for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

E.P. conceptualized and designed the study, designed the data collection instruments, collected data, carried out the initial analysis, and drafted the initial manuscript. A.S.W. conceptualized and designed the study, designed the data collection instruments, collected data, carried out the initial analysis, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. K.F.G. conceptualized and designed the study, designed the data collection instruments, collected data, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine F. Guttmann.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All participants provided informed consent prior to study participation.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-022-02105-9

Further reading

Search

Quick links