Abstract
With the passing of the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984, the United States government has created a framework for legal intervention into controversial Baby Doe cases where handicapped newborns are denied medical treatment, including hydration and nutrition. Both sides of four issues in this controversy are discussed: (a) the parents' right, after consulting with their physicians, to make the final decision to treat or to forego treatment for their disabled infants; (b) the omission of the notion of "quality of life" from the law; (c) the excessive financial burdens imposed as a result of decisions to treat; and (d) the role of the Infant Care Review Committees. In view of the evidence, the author supports the move toward federal intervention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
