The Legal Limits of Parental Autonomy: Do Parents Have the Right to Refuse Intramuscular Vitamin K for Their Newborn?

Shannon M Isennock
{"title":"The Legal Limits of Parental Autonomy: Do Parents Have the Right to Refuse Intramuscular Vitamin K for Their Newborn?","authors":"Shannon M Isennock","doi":"10.36518/2689-0216.1289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Description The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all newborns receive an intra-muscular (IM) dose of vitamin K within 6 hours of delivery for the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). There has been an increase in the number of parents who have refused the IM vitamin K dose for their infant based on its possible link to leukemia, preservatives that may lead to adverse reactions, and wanting to avoid pain for the infant. When newborns do not receive IM vitamin K, the most serious feared potential complication is intracranial hemorrhage with potential neurologic sequela including seizures, developmental delay, and death. Recent studies support the contention that parents are making the choice to refuse IM vitamin K without sufficient knowledge of the potential consequences. Parental decisions typically align with the best interest of the child; however, when parental decisions veer from the child's best interest, the limit of parental autonomy is tested. The precedent set by previous cases in which parental autonomy was challenged suggests parents should not be able to refuse IM vitamin K because the therapy has nearly no burden and forgoing this therapy has the potential for substantial harm. It has been argued that as long as the degree of intrusion is modest (a single IM injection) and the benefit substantial (prevention of possible death), states are granted the power to mandate the use of such an intervention. Mandated IM vitamin K for all newborns, regardless of parental approval, would rescind some parental autonomy but improve overall beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice in the care of newborns.</p>","PeriodicalId":73198,"journal":{"name":"HCA healthcare journal of medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10327957/pdf/26890216_01042023_05.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HCA healthcare journal of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36518/2689-0216.1289","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Description The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all newborns receive an intra-muscular (IM) dose of vitamin K within 6 hours of delivery for the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). There has been an increase in the number of parents who have refused the IM vitamin K dose for their infant based on its possible link to leukemia, preservatives that may lead to adverse reactions, and wanting to avoid pain for the infant. When newborns do not receive IM vitamin K, the most serious feared potential complication is intracranial hemorrhage with potential neurologic sequela including seizures, developmental delay, and death. Recent studies support the contention that parents are making the choice to refuse IM vitamin K without sufficient knowledge of the potential consequences. Parental decisions typically align with the best interest of the child; however, when parental decisions veer from the child's best interest, the limit of parental autonomy is tested. The precedent set by previous cases in which parental autonomy was challenged suggests parents should not be able to refuse IM vitamin K because the therapy has nearly no burden and forgoing this therapy has the potential for substantial harm. It has been argued that as long as the degree of intrusion is modest (a single IM injection) and the benefit substantial (prevention of possible death), states are granted the power to mandate the use of such an intervention. Mandated IM vitamin K for all newborns, regardless of parental approval, would rescind some parental autonomy but improve overall beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice in the care of newborns.

父母自主权的法律限制:父母有权拒绝新生儿肌注维生素K吗?
美国儿科学会建议所有新生儿在出生后6小时内接受肌内(IM)剂量的维生素K,以预防维生素K缺乏性出血(VKDB)。越来越多的父母拒绝给他们的婴儿服用IM维生素K剂量,理由是它可能与白血病有关,防腐剂可能导致不良反应,以及希望避免给婴儿带来痛苦。当新生儿不接受IM维生素K时,最严重的潜在并发症是颅内出血,并伴有潜在的神经系统后遗症,包括癫痫发作、发育迟缓和死亡。最近的研究支持了这样一种观点,即父母在没有充分了解潜在后果的情况下选择拒绝服用维生素K。父母的决定通常与孩子的最大利益保持一致;然而,当父母的决定偏离了孩子的最大利益时,父母自主权的极限就受到了考验。以前父母自主权受到挑战的案例的先例表明,父母不应该拒绝服用维生素K,因为这种疗法几乎没有负担,放弃这种疗法可能会造成实质性的伤害。有人认为,只要入侵的程度是适度的(注射一次IM)和利益是实质性的(防止可能的死亡),国家就有权要求使用这种干预措施。无论父母是否同意,所有新生儿都必须服用维生素K,这将剥夺一些父母的自主权,但在照顾新生儿方面,总体上是有益的、无害的和公正的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信