Proximate personhood as a standard for making difficult treatment decisions: imperiled newborns as a case study.

... The standard of personhood is gaining increased attention and prominence. The essential claim is that only individuals with capacities for significant cerebral functioning possess a morally unique claim to existence. Persons are defined as individuals who are self-aware and capable of self-direction (Engelhardt), able to enter meaningful relationships (McCormick), capable of minimal independent existence (Shelp), and in possession of a minimal 20-40 I.Q. (Joseph Fletcher). These are "high standard" personhood positions (those holding higher-brain related criteria). It is a commonplace with most such positions that newborns -- all newborns -- are not, strictly speaking, persons. That is, newborns are not self-aware, intentionally choosing individuals.... The thesis of this essay is that a developing individual's right to life increases as he or she approaches the threshold of personal life. That is, the more a newborn approximates -- or is proximate to -- undisputed personhood (e.g. the status of readers of this essay), the greater his or her claim to life. The two pivotal criteria for determining personhood are the potentiality for and development toward becoming an undisputed personal being. I am presupposing, for purposes of argument, that the handicapped infant would not be an excessive familial burden or an inordinate financial load for society, one an ancient and the other a modern criterion. That condition granted, this essay contends that if an imperiled newborn is reasonably projected to reach at least minimal personal capacity, treatment should be given.