Parental rights at the birth of a near-viable infant: Conflicting perspectives

J. V. Pinkerton; J. J. Finnerty; P. A. Lombardo; M. V. Rorty; H. Chapple; R. J. Boyle; D. L. Musgrave; J. T. Christmas; L. D. Devoe; Jr Thorp; J. E. Maher

doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70188-1

Parental rights at the birth of a near-viable infant: Conflicting perspectives

J. V. Pinkerton, J. J. Finnerty, P. A. Lombardo, M. V. Rorty, H. Chapple, R. J. Boyle, D. L. Musgrave, J. T. Christmas, L. D. Devoe, Jr Thorp, J. E. Maher

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

35 Scopus citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to clarify the roles of parents and caregivers in making decisions for resuscitation of near-viable infants. STUDY DESIGN: We present two cases and review ethical and legal issues involved in making decisions for near-viable infants. RESULTS: Medical responsibility for the infant shifts at birth from obstetrics to neonatology. Neonatologists will 'opt for life' when prognosis is uncertain. As surrogate decision makers, parents have rights to make decisions about initiation of resuscitation, but these parental rights are limited by the infant's best interests. If caregivers believe parents are not acting in the infant's best interests, they may persuade parents, challenge parental refusal by petitioning the courts, or treat without consent with possible legal risk. CONCLUSIONS: Effective communication is essential to prevent misunderstanding and conflicts. In most instances parents are the best decision makers for a near-viable infant. Parental rights are limited by best interests of the infant.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	283-290
Number of pages	8
Journal	American journal of obstetrics and gynecology
Volume	177
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70188-1
State	Published - 1997
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Best interests of infant
Near-viable infants
Parental rights
Resuscitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Access to Document

10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70188-1

Cite this

@article{d688ce49e2634cbc9343c639b5d8fad8,

title = "Parental rights at the birth of a near-viable infant: Conflicting perspectives",

abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to clarify the roles of parents and caregivers in making decisions for resuscitation of near-viable infants. STUDY DESIGN: We present two cases and review ethical and legal issues involved in making decisions for near-viable infants. RESULTS: Medical responsibility for the infant shifts at birth from obstetrics to neonatology. Neonatologists will 'opt for life' when prognosis is uncertain. As surrogate decision makers, parents have rights to make decisions about initiation of resuscitation, but these parental rights are limited by the infant's best interests. If caregivers believe parents are not acting in the infant's best interests, they may persuade parents, challenge parental refusal by petitioning the courts, or treat without consent with possible legal risk. CONCLUSIONS: Effective communication is essential to prevent misunderstanding and conflicts. In most instances parents are the best decision makers for a near-viable infant. Parental rights are limited by best interests of the infant.",

keywords = "Best interests of infant, Near-viable infants, Parental rights, Resuscitation",

author = "Pinkerton, {J. V.} and Finnerty, {J. J.} and Lombardo, {P. A.} and Rorty, {M. V.} and H. Chapple and Boyle, {R. J.} and Musgrave, {D. L.} and Christmas, {J. T.} and Devoe, {L. D.} and Jr Thorp and Maher, {J. E.}",

year = "1997",

doi = "10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70188-1",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "177",

pages = "283--290",

journal = "American journal of obstetrics and gynecology",

issn = "0002-9378",

publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Parental rights at the birth of a near-viable infant

T2 - Conflicting perspectives

AU - Pinkerton, J. V.

AU - Finnerty, J. J.

AU - Lombardo, P. A.

AU - Rorty, M. V.

AU - Chapple, H.

AU - Boyle, R. J.

AU - Musgrave, D. L.

AU - Christmas, J. T.

AU - Devoe, L. D.

AU - Thorp, Jr

AU - Maher, J. E.

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to clarify the roles of parents and caregivers in making decisions for resuscitation of near-viable infants. STUDY DESIGN: We present two cases and review ethical and legal issues involved in making decisions for near-viable infants. RESULTS: Medical responsibility for the infant shifts at birth from obstetrics to neonatology. Neonatologists will 'opt for life' when prognosis is uncertain. As surrogate decision makers, parents have rights to make decisions about initiation of resuscitation, but these parental rights are limited by the infant's best interests. If caregivers believe parents are not acting in the infant's best interests, they may persuade parents, challenge parental refusal by petitioning the courts, or treat without consent with possible legal risk. CONCLUSIONS: Effective communication is essential to prevent misunderstanding and conflicts. In most instances parents are the best decision makers for a near-viable infant. Parental rights are limited by best interests of the infant.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to clarify the roles of parents and caregivers in making decisions for resuscitation of near-viable infants. STUDY DESIGN: We present two cases and review ethical and legal issues involved in making decisions for near-viable infants. RESULTS: Medical responsibility for the infant shifts at birth from obstetrics to neonatology. Neonatologists will 'opt for life' when prognosis is uncertain. As surrogate decision makers, parents have rights to make decisions about initiation of resuscitation, but these parental rights are limited by the infant's best interests. If caregivers believe parents are not acting in the infant's best interests, they may persuade parents, challenge parental refusal by petitioning the courts, or treat without consent with possible legal risk. CONCLUSIONS: Effective communication is essential to prevent misunderstanding and conflicts. In most instances parents are the best decision makers for a near-viable infant. Parental rights are limited by best interests of the infant.

KW - Best interests of infant

KW - Near-viable infants

KW - Parental rights

KW - Resuscitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030884412&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030884412&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70188-1

DO - 10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70188-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 9290441

AN - SCOPUS:0030884412

SN - 0002-9378

VL - 177

SP - 283

EP - 290

JO - American journal of obstetrics and gynecology

JF - American journal of obstetrics and gynecology

IS - 2

ER -

Parental rights at the birth of a near-viable infant: Conflicting perspectives

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this