Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:22:27.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Journey of a Child and His Hear; A Decade of Transformation in the Legal, Medical, and Ethical Care of a Child with Down Syndrome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Gary E. Gathman
Gary E. Gathman
Affiliation:
Staff Physician and Chair of the Bioethics Committee, Sonoma Developmental Center, Eldridge, California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Much of recent medical, legal, and ethical focus has been directed toward the unborn or newly born. Guidelines and frameworks for decision making are in the early stages of evolution and are likely to shift as the politics, ethics, and economics of caregiving move beyond technologic accomplishments and debates into a more compassionate construct that may include input (when necessary and appropriate) from an institutional bioethics committee. Beyond that, the courts may continue to be the place where unresolved issues are settled, and with each passing year new and often divergent legal decisions are being generated that further complicate the physician's role as care giver and healer.

Type
Special Section: Ethical Decision Making and Persons with Mental Retardation
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Spring 1994 , pp. 174 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar

2. Callahan, D. The abortion debate: Can this chronic public illness be cured? Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 1992;35:783–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Jellinek, MS, Catlin, EA, Todres, ID, Cassem, EH. Facing tragic decisions with parents in the neonatal intensive care unit: clinical perspectives. Pediatrics 1992;89:119–22.Google ScholarPubMed

4. Paris, JJ, Crone, RK, Reardon, F. Physician's refusal of requested treatment the case of Baby L. New England Journal of Medicine 1990;322:1012–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Benitz, WE. A paradigm for making difficult choices in the intensive care nursery. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1993;2:281–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Garfunkel, JM. Priorities for the use of finite resources: now may be the time to choose. Journal of Pediatrics 1989;115:410–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. See note 4. Paris, , Crone, Reardon. 1990;322:1012–5.Google Scholar

8. Meisel, A. Legal myths about terminating life support. Archives of Internal Medicine 1991;151:1497–1502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Miles, SH. Informed demand for “non-beneficial” medical treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 1991;325:512–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Stevenson, DK, Ariagno, RL, Kutner, JS et al. , The “Baby Doe”; rule. Journal of the American Medical Association 1986;255:1909–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Burgdorf, RL Jr, Spicer, PP. The Legal Rights of Handicapped Persons. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1983:331–2.Google Scholar

12. In Re Phillip B., 1978; 92 C.A. 3 d 796; 156 Ca. Rptr 48.Google Scholar

13. Newman, G. San Jose Mercury News 1978 10. 1.Google Scholar

14. See note 12. In Re Phillip B. 1979.Google Scholar

15. Herhold, S. San Jose Mercury News 1980 03. 4.Google Scholar

16. In Re Phillip B. Superior Ct, Santa Clara Co., No. 101–981, 1981.Google Scholar

17. See note 11. Burgdorf, Spicer. 1983:326–37.Google Scholar

18. In Re Phillip B. 188 Ca. Rptr 781, 1983.Google Scholar