Related Experiment Videos
Baby Doe regulations and medical judgment
G Y York1, R M Gallarno, R O York
1Department of Pediatrics, East Carolina University School of Medicine, Greenville, N.C.
Social Science & Medicine (1982)
|January 1, 1990
Summary
Perinatal social workers, unlike physicians, did not report conflict between medical judgment and the
Area of Science:
- Medical Ethics
- Social Policy
- Pediatrics
Background:
- The 'Baby Doe' regulations (1984) govern withholding medical treatment from handicapped infants.
- Potential conflict exists between social policy and medical judgment in these cases.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare perinatal social workers' responses to 'Baby Doe' regulations with physicians' responses.
- To assess perceived conflict between medical judgment and federal regulations among social workers.
Main Methods:
- National survey of perinatal social workers.
- Comparison of social workers' responses to hypothetical cases with published physician data.
Main Results:
- Social workers did not report conflict between medical judgment and regulations in hypothetical cases.
- Physician data was previously misinterpreted regarding this conflict.
- Social workers were more likely than physicians to view regulations as protective of infant rights and impactful on practice.
Conclusions:
- Social workers' perspectives on 'Baby Doe' regulations differ from previous interpretations of physician responses.
- The regulations are perceived by social workers as necessary for protecting handicapped infants' rights.
- Social workers noted a greater impact of regulations on physician practice compared to physicians themselves.