Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Special Feature
  • Published:

Law and ethics at the border of viability

Journal of Perinatology volume 26, pages 321–324 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

The Supreme Court of Texas in the case of Miller v. HCA announced a rule in 2003 (118 s.w. 3d 758) that a physician attending the delivery of a severely premature infant may provide life-sustaining treatment for that infant under ‘emergent circumstances’ as a matter of law without first obtaining parental consent. This paper examines issues of law and ethics relevant to decisions about infant resuscitation at the border of viability. It is argued that there is typically no emergency when infants are delivered at 23 weeks gestation, and parents should be asked for informed consent before resuscitation in the delivery room.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Vohr BR, Allen M . Extreme prematurity – the continuing dilemma. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 71–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ho S, Saigal S . Current survival and early outcomes of infants of borderline viability. Neo Rev 2005; 6 (3): e123–e132.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Marlow N, Wolke D, Bracewell MA, Samara M . Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 9–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Furrow BR, Greaney TL, Johnson SH, Jost TS, Schwartz RL . Health Law: Cases, Materials and Problems, 5th edn. Thomson, West: St Paul, MN, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Robertson JA . Extreme prematurity and parental rights after Baby Doe. Hastings Center Report 2004; 34 (4): 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Paris JJ, Schreiber MD, Reardon F . The ‘emergent circumstances’ exception to the need for consent; the Texas Supreme Court ruling in Miller v. HCA. J Perinat 2004; 24: 337–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. See Black's Law Dictionary Second Pocket Edition 2001, Due Process Clause. The constitutional provision that prohibits the government from unfairly or arbitrarily depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.

  8. Public Law 98-457, 98 stat. 1749, 42 U.S.C. 5101-06 1985.

  9. Saigal S et al. Transition of extremely low-birth-weight infants from adolescence to young adulthood. JAMA 2006; 295 (6): 667–675.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brody H . Transparency: informed consent in primary care. Hastings Center Report 1989; 19 (5): 5–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Carter BS . Providing palliative care for newborns. Pediatr Ann 2004; 33 (11): 770–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Leuthner SR . Decisions regarding resuscitation of the extremely premature infant and models of best interest. J Perinatol 2001; 21: 193–198.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I want to thank M Jeffrey Maisels, MB, BCh and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions in the preparation of this manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. William Beaumont Hospital, the Center for Human Development and the Bioethics Office, Royal Oak, MI, USA

    E F Krug III

Authors
  1. E F Krug III
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E F Krug III.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krug, E. Law and ethics at the border of viability. J Perinatol 26, 321–324 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211529

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211529

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links