Authorizing Death for Anomalous Newborns

  • Robert A. Burt


Medical technologies that sustain life for otherwise doomed newborns bring special tensions in their wake. These technologies — fervently welcomed in most cases — also can prolong life for tragically deformed and limited infants, and this fact presses forward an old question: if, through medical science, life is within our power to maintain, does that mean there are times when we can choose to withhold life?


Down Syndrome Supra Note Criminal Liability Legal Regime Definitive Resolution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See Freud, A., The doctor-patient relationship, in “Experimentation with Human Beings,” J. Katz, (ed.), p. 643, Russell Sage Foundation, New York (1972); Callahan, D., “The Tyranny of Survival,” p. 230, Macmillan, New York (1973).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Friedman, J., Legal implications of amniocentesis, Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 123: 92, 93 (1974).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Duff, R.S. and Campbell, A.G.M., Moral and ethical dilemmas in the special-care nursery, New Eng. J. Med. 289: 890 ( 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Id. at p. 891.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Id. at p. 894.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robertson, J., Involuntary euthanasia of defective newborns: A legal analysis, Stanford Law Rev. 27: 213 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Id. at p. 217.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See id., at p. 243.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duff and Campbell report that, in their special-care nursery, an infant with Down syndrome was similarly permitted to die. See op. cit. supra note 4, at p. 891.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kamisar, Y., Some non-religious views against proposed “mercy- killing” legislation, Minn. Law Rev. 42: 969, 1014 (1958).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Op. cit. supra n. 7, at p. 267.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See the conditions described by the visibly shocked Federal judges in N.Y. State Asso. for Retarded Children v. Rockefeller, 357 Federal Supplement 752 (Eastern District, NY 1973 ) and Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 Federal Supplement 387 ( Middle District, Alabama, 1972 ).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    See, e. g., Nicholas Hobbs (ed.), “The Futures of Children,” Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco (1975).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Compare Burt, R., Reflections on the Detroit psychosurgery case: Why we should keep prisoners from the doctors, Hastings Cntr. Rep. 5: 25, 34 (1975).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    See Report of Committee for the Study of Inborn Errors of Metabolism, Division of Medical Sciences, National Research Council, Chapter 6, Section 2 (1975).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gleitman v. Cosgrove, 49 N.J. 22, 227 A. 2d 689, 693 (1967).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Op. cit. supra note 7, at pp. 230-35Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See Bickel, A.M., “The Least Dangerous Branch,” Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis (1962).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See Goldstein, J., Police Discretion Not to Invoke the Criminal Process, in “Crime, Law and Society,” A, Goldstein and J. GoldsteinTeds.), The Free Press, New York (1971); Morris, N., “The Future of Imprisonment,” p. 45, University of Chicago Press, Chicago ( 1974 ); Gaylin, W., “Partial Justice: A Study of Bias in Sentencing,” Knopf, A.A., New York (1974).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Repouille v. United States, 165 F.2d 152 (2d Circuit, 1947 ).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Id. at p. 153.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Id. at p. 154.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert A. Burt
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Michigan Law SchoolUSA

Personalised recommendations