Fiats and Vigilantes

The U.S. Supreme Court decision against the so-called Baby Doe Regulations of the Reagan Administration will at least restore critical health-care decisions for children to those best able to make the decisions--the parents and doctors of the afflicted children.

No one can argue that these are simple matters. The issue of life and death rarely is. But the Supreme Court noted that there has been no evidence of unfair discrimination in the treatment of handicapped children that would justify federal intervention. And the court found that under existing law federal officials have no authority “to give unsolicited advice either to parents, to hospitals or to state officials who are faced with difficult treatment decisions concerning handicapped children.”

Unfortunately, the Justice Department has already indicated its determination to circumvent the high court’s decision with other regulations through which the federal government will try to pursue its intrusion into these painful matters.

Under pressure from President Reagan’s campaign in behalf of handicapped children, including his vigilantist call for hospital staff workers to report anything that they judge to be an abuse of a child’s rights, there has been a substantial increase in the risk of doctors and hospitals abusing medical technology and their own discretion by resorting to heroic measures that serve primarily to prolong pain and suffering.

The Reagan Administration has argued for the use of anything and everything that would prolong the lives of handicapped children. But that formula ignores the fact that life-sustaining procedures can also be death-prolonging. Recent studies by medical and legal experts and ethicists have wisely supported decisions to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging treatments, including food and water, when they serve essentially to prolong suffering and death itself.

Federal fiats are dangerous and inferior alternatives, in making these terrible decisions, to the wisdom of the parents and the doctors.