IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v20y1985i11p1085-1090.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selecting neonatal ethics

Author

Listed:
  • Frader, Joel E.

Abstract

Nontreatment of handicapped newborns has disturbed American society, prompting heated debate and new attempts by government at regulation. Robert Weir's new book reviews the elements of this controversy as argued by concerned doctors, lawyers and ethicists. Unfortunately, we do not know the magnitude or scope of the problem. We know little about how often or under what circumstances physicians practice nontreatment. In discussing the issues, Weir and others have paid inadequate attention to medical uncertainty. The inability to accurately predict outcome makes clinical judgment harder than most philosophers and others acknowledge. Many legal arguments are outdated. The concept of personhood Weir and ethicists invoke confounds decision making. Complex or uncertain medicomoral dilemmas will not be resolved more easily by ethics committees. This procedural solution to a substantive quandry creates new problems. More attention must be paid to patients' current and future suffering when deciding whether to treat severely handicapped infants.

Suggested Citation

  • Frader, Joel E., 1985. "Selecting neonatal ethics," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 20(11), pages 1085-1090, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:20:y:1985:i:11:p:1085-1090
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(85)90184-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:20:y:1985:i:11:p:1085-1090. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.