Section 504,Handicapped Newborns,and Ethics Committees: An Alternative to the Hotline

Strong C. , Defective Infants and Their Impact on Families: Ethical and Legal Considerations, Law, Medicine & Health Care 11(4): 168 (September 1983); Cohn S.D. , The Living Will from the Nurse's Perspective, Law, Medicine & Health Care 11(3): 121 (June 1983); Dunn L.J. , The Eichner/Storar Decision: A Year's Perspective, Law, Medicine & Health Care 10(3): 117 (June 1982); Paris J.J. , Terminating Treatment for Newborns: A Theological Perspective, Law, Medicine & Health Care 10(3): 120 (June 1982); Rothenberg L.S. , The Empty Search for an Imprimatur, or Delphic Oracles Are in Short Supply, Law, Medicine & Health Care 10(3): 115 (June 1982); Corless I.B. , Physicians and Nurses: Roles and Responsibilities in Caring for the Critically III Patient, Law, Medicine & Health Care 10(2): 72 (April 1982); Taub S. , Withholding Treatment from Defective Newborns, Law, Medicine & Health Care 10(1): 4 (February 1982).

48 Fed. Reg. 30,846 (1983) (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. §84.61).

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 (Supp. V 1981).

Id.

48 Fed. Reg. 30,850 (1983).

Id.

47 Fed. Reg. 26,027 (1982).

Id.

48 Fed. Reg. 9,630 (1983).

American Academy of Pediatrics v. Heckler, 561 F. Supp. 395 (D.D.C. 1983).

Id. at 399.

Id.

Id. at 401.

Id.

Id. at 402.

48 Fed. Reg. 30,846 (1983).

48 Fed. Reg. 30,851 (1983) (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. §84.61).

Id.

Id.

Id.

See Tomaselli L.A. McCann R.W. , AHA Files “Baby Doe”Comments; Criticizes Proposed Rule, Health Law Vigil 6(19): 1–3 (September 16, 1983).

See Statement of the American Medical Association to the Department of Health and Human Services Re Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap Related to Health Care for Handicapped Infants (August 26, 1983).

See Comments of the American Academy of Pediatrics on: Proposed Rule Regarding Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap Relating to Health Care for Handicapped Infants (1983) (submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services in response to proposed rule). See also The American Academy of Pediatrics Comments on the “Baby Doe II”Regulations, New England Journal of Medicine 309(7): 443–44 (August 18, 1983).

See, e.g., Knox , Journal Urges Reagan to Drop “Baby Doe”Rules, Boston Globe, September 15, 1983, at 8; Bound by Reagan's Commitment to “Baby Doe”Rule, Task Force Debates Whether Rule Could Broaden Civil Rights Protections, Washington Post, May 23, 1983, at All, col. a.

See 48 Fed. Reg. 30,847 (referring to Boston television series, “Death in the Nursery,”aired February 1983).

Id. at 30, 852.

In re Quinlan, 355 A.2d 647, 671 (N.J. 1976), cert. den., 429 U.S. 1922 (1976) (court ruled that guardian, family and physician should consult hospital “ethics committee”which would agree whether there was a reasonable possibility of patient's recovery).

In re Colyer, 660 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1983) (court advocated reliance on a hospital “prognosis board”to determine a patient's reasonable medical probability of recovery; rejected use of ethics committees containing non-physician personnel in decisions to discontinue life support).

See Youngner S.J. , A National Survey of Hospital Ethics Committees, in President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment: Ethical, Medical, and Legal Issues in Treatment Decisions (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.) (1983) at 443-49.

American Academy of Pediatrics, supra note 23, at 51 (Conditions of Participation set out in Appendix pp. 1–4).

See Medical Groups Divided on “Baby Doe”Alternative, American Medical News, September 16, 1983, at 1.

American Academy of Pediatrics, supra note 23, at 52-53.

Id. at 53.

Id. at 54.

See Americans United for Life Legal Defense Fund, Letter, Ethics Committee Newsletter, No. 2 (October 1983).