These are the instruction I am attaching a summary that I just need you to review and revise so it does not look like chat GPT wrote it.
Examine the case of Baby Boy Doe (Darr, 2011, p. 26-27.) The objective of this assignment is to get you to think critically about real-life ethical dilemmas and the moral principals involved. There is no right or wrong answer, just try to look at this case subjectively. Most of the time, resolving ethical dilemmas is not so "black and white." Discuss arguments for and against the issues below
1. Discuss what makes this an ethical dilemma (read pp. 3 and 4).
2. Discuss the implications of this study in terms of the moral principles described in chapter 1.
Here are some questions that may guide your thinking:
Respect for persons: Did the hospital/ physicians allow the parents to be autonomous in their decision-making? Do you see any elements of paternalism on behalf of the physicians?
Beneficence: Did the hospital/ physicians act beneficently?
Nonmaleficence: Did the hospital/ physicians consider nonmaleficence?
Justice: Did the hospital act in a just way?
3. Finally, do you think that the hospital did all that it could in this situation? Did it act appropriately? Explain.
Reference: Darr, K. (2011). Ethics in Health Services Management. (5th Edition). Baltimore, MD: Health Professions Press, Inc.
Baby Boy Doe Case Study: An Ethical Analysis
Shamika Hinton
APUS
June 8, 2025
Baby Boy Doe Case Study: An Ethical Analysis
The Baby Boy Doe case, as described by Darr (2011, pp. 26–27), presents a complex and emotionally charged ethical dilemma. At the center of the case is a newborn infant born with Down syndrome and a congenital defect in the esophagus that prevented him from being fed orally. The parents chose not to approve the surgery required to correct the esophageal condition. The physicians and hospital initially respected the parents’ decision, but the situation escalated when hospital staff members, opposing the decision, alerted advocacy groups. The resulting legal and media storm brought the ethical dilemma into national focus.
What Makes This an Ethical Dilemma?
This situation qualifies as an ethical dilemma because it involves a conflict between two or more ethical principles, where any course of action could violate one or more of those principles (Darr, 2011). On one side, the principle of respect for autonomy supports the parents' right to make medical decisions on behalf of their child. On the other side, principles like beneficence and nonmaleficence compel healthcare professionals to do good and avoid harm. The conflict arises because the parents’ decision not to authorize surgery may have led to preventable harm or even death, which challenges the healthcare team’s duty to act in the child’s best interest. This clash between parental rights and professional ethical obligations makes the case ethically complex and deeply controversial.
Moral Principles Involved
Respect for Persons (Autonomy): The hospital and physicians initially upheld the parents’ right to make medical decisions for their child, in line with the principle of respect for autonomy. However, one could argue that there were elements of paternalism, particularly when hospital staff members took steps to override the parents' decision by contacting outside agencies. Paternalism, though sometimes well-intentioned, can undermine respect for persons by assuming that someone else knows what is best for the patient (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).
Beneficence The hospital and physicians had a moral obligation to promote the well-being of Baby Boy Doe. While they initially deferred to the parents’ wishes, they later sought to act beneficently by advocating for surgery, which had the potential to save the infant's life. Beneficence also extends beyond immediate medical concerns to the broader societal value of affirming the lives of individuals with disabilities. By eventually challenging the parents' decision, the healthcare team attempted to fulfill this principle, albeit at the cost of autonomy.
Nonmaleficence This principle“do no harm” was central to the ethical tension. Allowing the infant to die from a surgically correctable condition arguably constituted a failure of nonmaleficence. From the physicians' perspective, not intervening would cause greater harm than the risks of surgery. Yet the parents may have viewed surgery as prolonging suffering or introducing unnecessary hardship due to the child's anticipated quality of life. Nonmaleficence, in this context, was subject to interpretation, highlighting how complex its application can be.
Justice Justice involves fair treatment and the equitable distribution of resources and care. Some argued that refusing treatment based on the child’s Down syndrome diagnosis was discriminatory, thus violating justice. From this view, denying surgery purely because of a genetic condition could set a dangerous precedent for valuing lives differently based on perceived quality or ability. The hospital’s eventual decision to push for surgery aligns more with a just and inclusive healthcare approach (Pozgar, 2020).
Did the Hospital Do All It Could?
The hospital ultimately acted in a way that balanced ethical considerations and legal obligations, though not without controversy. Initially, the institution respected the parents’ autonomy and refrained from intervening. As staff became more concerned, they escalated the issue appropriately by involving legal and advocacy organizations. This step was both ethically and legally complex but suggests that the hospital tried to do all it could to preserve the life and dignity of the child.
However, one could critique the process for its lack of transparency and the possible erosion of trust between the hospital and the family. Greater efforts in mediation, ethics consultation, and family counseling might have helped reach a collaborative solution sooner. Nonetheless, considering the time period and societal context, the hospital's actions were arguably appropriate and even courageous in defending the rights of a vulnerable patient.
References
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Darr, K. (2011). Ethics in health services management (5th ed.). Health Professions Press.
Pozgar, G. D. (2020). Legal and ethical issues for health professionals (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.