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.
Insights
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.
Abstract:
The potential for conflict between social policy and medical judgment can be examined in relation to the 'Baby Doe' regulations issued by the U.S. Federal Government in 1984. These regulations identify the circumstances in which medical treatment may be withheld from handicapped infants. This article reports on a national survey of perinatal social workers which compared their responses to the answers of physicians to similar questions published earlier. These social workers failed to express a conflict between sound medical judgment and the federal regulations when confronted with three hypothetical cases. The same was true in the published study of physicians but that data was erroneously interpreted as providing evidence of a conflict between medical judgment and federal regulations. On some general opinion statements, the social workers were similar to physicians in their criticism of these regulations but on others they were equivocal. While the majority of responses of social workers to other questions about these regulations was rather similar to the responses of physicians, the social workers were found to be more inclined than physicians to express the view that these regulations were needed to protect the rights of handicapped infants and the view that the physician's practice had been changed as a result of these regulations.