{"title":"“小母鹿”规则歧视婴儿吗?","authors":"G E Jones","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This essay consists of a critical examination of the 'Baby Doe' rules with respect to their proscription of references to quality of life considerations as a basis for treatment decisions. It is argued that the rules cannot and should not obviate references to the infant's quality of life. Further, it is argued that there are not sufficient differences between infants and adult incompetent patients to justify the use of quality of life assessments with regard to the latter and not the former.</p>","PeriodicalId":77588,"journal":{"name":"Pediatrician","volume":"17 2","pages":"87-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do the 'Baby Doe' rules discriminate against infants?\",\"authors\":\"G E Jones\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This essay consists of a critical examination of the 'Baby Doe' rules with respect to their proscription of references to quality of life considerations as a basis for treatment decisions. It is argued that the rules cannot and should not obviate references to the infant's quality of life. Further, it is argued that there are not sufficient differences between infants and adult incompetent patients to justify the use of quality of life assessments with regard to the latter and not the former.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77588,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatrician\",\"volume\":\"17 2\",\"pages\":\"87-91\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1990-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatrician\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatrician","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Do the 'Baby Doe' rules discriminate against infants?
This essay consists of a critical examination of the 'Baby Doe' rules with respect to their proscription of references to quality of life considerations as a basis for treatment decisions. It is argued that the rules cannot and should not obviate references to the infant's quality of life. Further, it is argued that there are not sufficient differences between infants and adult incompetent patients to justify the use of quality of life assessments with regard to the latter and not the former.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
