First, by the time of the Baby Doe regulations and subsequent federal legislation, US pediatricians and parents had already begun a major change in attitudes and practices regarding infants born with Down syndrome and neural tube defects, among the most common congenital conditions that had previously prompted nontreatment. The heavy-handed federal approach likely had more political significance than production of meaningful changes in the care of infants with Down syndrome or meningomyelocele. Many of these infants acquire long-lasting disabilities because of their early birth and the measures used to sustain their lives. What stands out about this latter group, statistically and economically, is the relatively small amount of effort our society invests in preventing premature birth compared to the huge allocations for the purpose of rescuing tiny infants who would have benefited from continued intrauterine growth and development. Assuming that improved prenatal care can reduce the rate of preterm births, a relatively small investment in prenatal care could reap substantial human and monetary gains.
Rights involve claims by individuals or classes against the larger society.
By implication, rights invoke the notion of special entitlements that outweigh other considerations, such as fairness or justice. As with many debates in our society, invoking rights seems to limit, rather than open, useful dialogue. Rights language seems to preclude close examination of real, though sometimes subtle, differences between those assigned specific entitlements. However, because of limited resources, life requires choices that often stand in opposition to traditional claims of rights. Many now question whether we in the United States are maximizing dollars spent.