Although Duff and Campbell thought yes, the public outcry leading to the passage of the Baby Doe regulations
showed that some disagreed vehemently.
As amendments to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, the newer, unaffected Baby Doe regulations
give state child-abuse agencies primary enforcement responsibilities.
The original Baby Doe regulations addressed handicapped infants with additional medical conditions that would be corrected in a non-handicapped infant.
As violated as parties might feel, however, the Baby Doe regulations can serve a critical purpose: they can respond to "slippery slope" concerns.
Instead, the case provided a new twist on the so-called Baby Doe regulations promulgated during the Reagan administration.
What is not in doubt, however, is the odd twist given to the so-called Baby Doe regulations when Sacred Heart responded to the Nguyens' suit by filing a complaint with Child Protective Services (CPS), citing Washington State rules that require health-care providers to notify CPS when an impasse occurs between physicians and parents over an infant's life-sustaining treatment.
The statute and its new set of Baby Doe regulations specify three circumstances that negate a finding of neglect, the third of which is when "in the treating physician's reasonable medical judgment" the "provision of such treatment would be virtually futile and the treatment itself under such circumstances would be inhumane.
Many of these committees have survived, even though the federal Baby Doe regulations
Until that occurs, can DHHS claim that the Baby Doe regulations
have ever actually reached Alaska?