ReviewHCA healthcare journal of medicine2023
The Legal Limits of Parental Autonomy: Do Parents Have the Right to Refuse Intramuscular Vitamin K for Their Newborn?
Review in HCA healthcare journal of medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin K Prophylaxis in Newborns: A Narrative Review of the Molecular Basis, Clinical Evidence, and Comparative Effectiveness of Intramuscular Versus Oral Administration and Parental Hesitation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Description The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all newborns receive an intra-muscular (IM) dose of vitamin K within 6 hours of delivery for the prevention of vitamin K deficiency bleeding (VKDB). There has been an increase in the number of parents who have refused the IM vitamin K dose for their infant based on its possible link to leukemia, preservatives that may lead to adverse reactions, and wanting to avoid pain for the infant. When newborns do not receive IM vitamin K, the most serious feared potential complication is intracranial hemorrhage with potential neurologic sequela including seizures, developmental delay, and death. Recent studies support the contention that parents are making the choice to refuse IM vitamin K without sufficient knowledge of the potential consequences. Parental decisions typically align with the best interest of the child; however, when parental decisions veer from the child's best interest, the limit of parental autonomy is tested. The precedent set by previous cases in which parental autonomy was challenged suggests parents should not be able to refuse IM vitamin K because the therapy has nearly no burden and forgoing this therapy has the potential for substantial harm. It has been argued that as long as the degree of intrusion is modest (a single IM injection) and the benefit substantial (prevention of possible death), states are granted the power to mandate the use of such an intervention. Mandated IM vitamin K for all newborns, regardless of parental approval, would rescind some parental autonomy but improve overall beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice in the care of newborns.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.