FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 330:1542-1545 May 26, 1994 Number 21 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

Almost two decades ago, Dr. Franz J. Ingelfinger predicted that if physicians kept turning to the courts "to resolve essentially medical matters," the medical profession's unfortunate "dependence on the lawyer in reaching essentially medical decisions will continue"¹. One can argue about what decisions are "essentially medical," but the trend that worried Dr. Ingelfinger has continued, and now physicians and a hospital have sought legal and judicial guidance about how -- and whether -- to treat an anencephalic infant known as Baby K.

Treating Baby K

Baby K was born by cesarean section on October 13, 1992, at Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

The Opinion of the Trial Court

The Court of Appeals

Mixed Messages and Confused Roles

The Role of Medical Standards

What Should Be Done?

References

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Solomon, M. Z., Sellers, D. E., Heller, K. S., Dokken, D. L., Levetown, M., Rushton, C., Truog, R. D., Fleischman, A. R. (2005). New and Lingering Controversies in Pediatric End-of-Life Care. Pediatrics 116: 872-883 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Boyle, R. J. (2004). Paradigm Cases in Decision Making for Neonates. NeoReviews 5: e477-e483 [Full Text]  
• Rosenbaum, S., Kamoie, B. (2003). Finding a Way Through the Hospital Door: The Role of EMTALA in Public Health Emergencies. J Law Med Ethics 31: 590-601  
• Brett, A. S., Jersild, P. (2003). "Inappropriate" Treatment Near the End of Life: Conflict Between Religious Convictions and Clinical Judgment. Arch Intern Med 163: 1645-1649 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Whitney, S. N. (2003). A New Model of Medical Decisions: Exploring the Limits of Shared Decision Making. Med Decis Making 23: 275-280 [Abstract]  
• Lo, B., Dornbrand, L., Wolf, L. E., Groman, M. (2002). The Wendland Case -- Withdrawing Life Support from Incompetent Patients Who Are Not Terminally Ill. NEJM 346: 1489-1493 [Full Text]  
• Kapp, M. B. (1999). Commentary: Anxieties as a Legal Impediment to the Doctor-Proxy Relationship. J Law Med Ethics 27: 69-73  
• Bernard Lo, A. A. (1999). Avoiding Family Feuds: Responding to Surrogate Demands for Life-Sustaining Interventions. J Law Med Ethics 27: 74-80  
• Paris, J. J., Cassem, E. H., Dec, G. W., Reardon, F. E. (1999). Use of a DNR Order Over Family Objections: The Case of Gilgunn v. MGH. J Intensive Care Med 14: 41-45  
• Mehlman, M. J., Durchslag, M. R., Neuhauser, D. (1997). When Do Health Care Decisions Discriminate against Persons with Disabilities?. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 22: 1385-1411 [Abstract]  
• Spielman, B. (1995). Bargaining about Futility. J Law Med Ethics 23: 136-142  
• Post, S. G. (1995). Baby K: Medical Futility and the Free Exercise of Religion. J Law Med Ethics 23: 20-26  
• Murphy, D. J. (1994). Commentary: The Public and the Profession: Meeting at the Right Place. J Law Med Ethics 22: 161-162  
• Angell, M. (1994). After Quinlan: The Dilemma of the Persistent Vegetative State. NEJM 330: 1524-1525 [Full Text]