Advertisement

Neonatal Euthanasia: Why Require Parental Consent?

  • Jacob M. AppelEmail author
Article

Abstract

The Dutch rules governing neonatal euthanasia, known as the Groningen Protocol, require parental consent for severely disabled infants with poor prognoses to have their lives terminated. This paper questions whether parental consent should be dispositive in such cases, and argues that the potential suffering of the neonate or pediatric patient should be the decisive factor under such unfortunate circumstances.

Keywords

Euthanasia Pediatric euthanasia Groningen protocol 

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Bioethics. 1995. Informed consent, parental permission and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 95(2): 314–317.Google Scholar
  2. Appel, J.M. 2000. English high court orders separation of conjoined twins. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28(3): 312–318. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2000.tb00678.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appel, J.M. 2005. Defining death: When physicians and families differ. Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 641–642. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.011718.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartholome, W. 1989. A new understanding of consent in pediatric practice, parental permission, and child assent. Pediatric Annals 18(4): 262–265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brazier, M., and D. Arcard. 2007. Letting babies die. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 125–126. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.020099.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohan, J.A. 2006. Judicial enforcement of lifesaving treatment for unwilling patients. Creighton Law Review 39: 849–913.Google Scholar
  7. Costeloe, K. 2007. Euthanasia in neonates: Should it be available? British Medical Journal 334: 912–913. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39177.456481.BE.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis, D.S. 1994. Does "no" mean "yes"? The continuing problem of Jehovah's Witnesses and refusal of blood products. Second Opinion 19(3): 34–43.Google Scholar
  9. Dickens, B., et al. 1998. Dealing with demands for inappropriate treatment. Canadian Medical Association Journal 6: 817–821.Google Scholar
  10. Duff, R., and A.G.M. Campbell. 1976. On deciding the care of severely handicapped or dying persons: With particular reference to infants. Pediatrics 57: 487–493.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fell, J.M., and G.W. Rylance. 1991. Parental permission, information, and consent. Archives of Disease in Childhood 66(8): 980–981. doi: 10.1136/adc.66.8.980.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Frith, M. 2004. Doctors can withhold sick boy’s life saving treatment. The Independent 23 October.Google Scholar
  13. Kuther, T. 2003. Medical decision-making and minors: Issues of consent and assent. Adolescence 38: 343.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Manninen, B.A. 2006. A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: Exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol. Journal of Medical Ethics 32(11): 643–651. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.014845.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. McAlpine, J. 2007. “Euthanasia” doctor merits mercy. Sunday Times 8 July, 15.Google Scholar
  16. Merrick, J. 2003. Spiritual healing, sick kids, and the law: Inequities in the American healthcare system. American Journal of Law. Medical Ethics (Burlington, Mass.) 29(2/3): 269–299.Google Scholar
  17. Moore, P. 2007. An end of life quandary in need of a statutory response: When patients demand life sustaining treatment that physicians are unwilling to provide. Boston College Law Review. Boston College. Law School 48: 433–469.Google Scholar
  18. Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 1944. 321 US 158.Google Scholar
  19. Roser, M.A. 2007. Boy’s short life to have lasting impact. Austin American Statesman 21 May, B1.Google Scholar
  20. Sceper, T.M., and S.A. Duursma. 1994. Euthanasia: The Dutch experience. Age and Ageing 23: 3–8. doi: 10.1093/ageing/23.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tatman v. Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center, Court of Appeals of Tennessee. 2001.Google Scholar
  22. Tierney, H. 2002. Conjoined twins: The conflict between parents and the courts over the medical treatment of children. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 30: 458–476.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Urquhart, F. 2007. Consultant calls for debate to clear up end-of-life decisions. The Scotsman 12 July, 7.Google Scholar
  24. Verhagen, E., and P. Sauer. 2005. The Groningen Protocol—Euthanasia in severely ill newborns. The New England Journal of Medicine 352: 959–962. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp058026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations