Neonatal ethics has focused on 2 questions: is withholding potentially live-saving treatment from neonates ethically justified? and if so, who has the authority to decide? This article details how these questions developed and provides a description of the possible answers. In the first section, we review a selection of seminal articles by noted authors in the fields of ethics, medicine, and law. The second section provides a detailed account of the development of the Baby Doe Regulations and the impact they had on neonatal ethics, with particular attention to the emergence of the Best Interest Standard as a guideline for decision making. In the last section, we review the landmark position statements by the American Academy of Pediatric (AAP), and the focus on evidence-based decision making. We conclude that forgoing life-saving treatment is ethically justified. However, this requires a rigorous evidence-based process and is limited by the Best Interest Standard. The second question is more difficult to answer, but we feel that in light of legal limitations, physicians acting as both the infant advocate and a proxy for the state, decide what falls in the range of acceptable treatment options, with the parents free to choose within that range.