In the cases of Baby Doe and Baby Jane Doe, the medicinal procedures were not dissimilar. In the case of Baby Doe, the parents decided not to treat their baby, who was born with Down syndrom

In the cases of Baby Doe and Baby Jane Doe, the medicinal procedures were not dissimilar. In
the case of Baby Doe, the parents decided not to treat their baby, who was born with Down syndrome
and esophageal atresia. Esophageal atresia is entirely treatable and has a high success rate. Baby Doe’s
guardians, however, took the decision not to get the surgery, which was upheld in court, and he died
days later from malnutrition and dehydration. Not long after, the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) stated that no hospital receiving federal funds will “withhold from a handicapped infant
nutritional sustenance or medical or surgical treatment required to correct a life-threatening condition if
1) the withholding is based on the fact that the infant is handicapped and 2) the handicap does not
render treatment or nutritional sustenance unavailable.” After much debate, the HHS drafted a revised
set of rules, but they will also be subject to the public’s divisive view of the regulations.
The Baby Jane Doe case was unique in that the mother of the infant with meningomyelocele,
anencephaly, and hydrocephaly chose not to have surgery. If Baby Jane Doe had surgery, she will suffer
from serious emotional disorders, dementia, paralysis, and urinary and bladder diseases on a regular
basis. Essentially, if Baby Jane Doe had the surgery, she would die. All of these incidents called into
question the ability of the parents, doctors, and nurses to make the right choices for the children.
how is this case related to the reading attached below
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/opinion/sunday/hospice-end-of-life-racism.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage