Baby Doe Regulations

John M. Freeman, Loretta M. Kopelman, Thomas G. Irons, Arthur E. Kopelman

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterpeer-review

2 Scopus citations


To the Editor: Kopelman et al. (March 17 issue)* report, on the basis of survey results, that neonatologists believe that the Baby Doe regulations are not necessary, that they interfere with parents' rights to determine the optimal treatment for their children, and that they do not allow adequate consideration of infants' suffering. One third believed that maximal life-prolonging treatment was not in the best interests of the infants but that the Baby Doe regulations required such treatment. The authors suggest that the neonatologists' concerns should lead to a reconsideration of the regulations. There are two other possible interpretations of their.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalNew England Journal of Medicine
Issue number11
StatePublished - Sep 15 1988

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)


Dive into the research topics of 'Baby Doe Regulations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this