PDF1 - University of Maryland School of Law

eporting cases of medical neglect to the State childprotective services agency, that is part of theoperations of a corporation that principally provideshealth care; if any part of the hospital receivesmedicaid or medicare, discrimination based on handicapin the reporting operation, therefore, violatessection 504.Importance of Section 504 EnforcementAlthough there is another basis for Federal enforcementof the right to treatment of children bornwith disabilities—the Child Abuse Amendments of1984, 136 which are described in the next chapterenforcementof section 504 would provide certainadvantages not present in the Child Abuse Amendmentsalone. For one, section 504 reaches medicaldiscrimination against people with disabilities of anyage; unlike the Child Abuse Amendments, its coverageis not limited to children. For another, the ChildAbuse Amendments apply only to States that chooseto accept Federal funding for their child abuseprograms. 137 In fiscal year 1988, four States—including California, the Nation's most populous—were not covered by the amendments. 138 Even inthe other States, there are a number of ways inwhich the amendments are inferior to section 504 inprotecting against medical discrimination. As JamesBopp, Jr., a member of the President's Commissionon Mental Retardation and the director of a legalservices program specializing in denial of medicaltreatment to people with disabilities, testified:[T]he remedies available in Section 504 are superior. TheChild Abuse Amendments of 1984 require, at the pain ofloss of Federal funds, State child protective serviceagencies to act. That is quite in contrast with theapplication of Section 504, which provides a substantivelaw standard for the entities that are discriminating againstpersons with disabilities in the delivery of medical care,which are hospitals and hospital employees and otherswho are recipients of Federal financial assistance. So theChild Abuse Amendments are quite indirect in their abilityto influence the discrimination that is occurring withinhospitals. Pub. L. No. 98-457, tit. 1, §§ 121-28, 98 Stat. 1749, 1752-55(codified at 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 5101-5103 (West Supp. 1988)).137Protection of Handicapped Newborns: Hearing Before the UnitedStates Commission on Civil Rights 35 (1986) (vol. II) (testimony ofJames W. Ellis, School of Law, University of New Mexico).Accord, id. at 159 (testimony of James Bopp, Jr., President,National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled).138Telephone interview with Mary McKough, Program Analyst,National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect, DepartmentSecond, section 504 provides for private remedies,remedies where a child who is denied treatment can go toFederal court and insist upon treatment if a hospital woulddeny treatment or, second, may seek damages to compensatehim for his injuries.Third, actions by State child abuse and neglect agenciesonly occur on a case-by-case basis. Section 504, incontrast, can be the subject of a class action. . . .TheChild Abuse Amendments only would involve a case-bycaseprotection of then-alive infants that are deniedtreatment, whereas under section 504 you can get injunctiverelief to prohibit the hospital from using this form ofcriteria and protect all future infants. 139The Commission heard revealing testimony frompediatric neurologist Dr. Patricia Ellison concerningthe comparative effect of the section 504 regulationsand those under the Child Abuse Amendments of1984. When the section 504 rules were issued, shesaid, discussions about stopping lifesaving treatmentin the neonatal intensive care unit "promptlyceased." Because physicians feared getting intotrouble, "They treat[ed], and they continue[d] totreat." By contrast, under the Child Abuse Amendments,because physicians have "long worked withpeople in child abuse[,]. . .we would be surprised ifit were an overwhelmingly interfering system.. .and one doesn't expect that they will bedoing a lot of newborn investigation by andlarge." 140It creates a strange anomaly for the FederalGovernment to mandate that State agencies enforcedetailed national standards that forbid medical discrimination,while permitting Federal funds to beused for programs that are engaged in the samediscrimination. The Federal Government enforcesracial and sexual antidiscrimination standards forrecipients of its funds; it should do the same toprevent medical discrimination against persons withdisabilities.ConclusionThe Commission's reading of the legislative historyand plain meaning of section 504 persuade it thatof Health and Human Services (Dec. 2, 1988). Ohio receivedfunds in prior fiscal years, but was denied FY 1988 funds forreasons unrelated to the Baby Doe requirements. Id.189Protection of Handicapped Newborns: Hearing Before the UnitedStates Commission on Civil Rights 162 (1986) (vol. II) (testimonyof James Bopp, Jr., President, National Legal Center for theMedically Dependent and Disabled).140Id. at 240-41 (testimony of Patricia Ellison, M.D.). Dr.Owens concurred. Id. at 241 (testimony of Walter Owens, M.D.,Bloomington Obstetrics and Gynecology, Inc.).77