Differing Thresholds for Overriding Parental Refusals of Life-Sustaining Treatment

Conflict between parents, physicians, and healthcare professionals in medical decision-making: How to address it-A systematic review from the ESPGHAN Ethics Committee

Medical decisions about pediatric gastroenterology pathologies often involve collaboration between the medical team and the family. On occasions, conflict may arise between the individuals involved in decision making (team-family conflict) causing delays in managing a child's health condition. Little is known on the strategies that can be implemented to address such conflicts. Using the systematic review model by McCullough et al., an electronic literature search was conducted using PUBMED databases and SCOPUS. Studies published between 2001 and 2022 were analyzed to identify high-risk families, the barriers and facilitators involved in the team-family conflict and the circumstances in which healthcare professionals can be ethically justified to override parents' medical decisions and to trigger the state intervention. The present review provides recommendations on the more suitable ways to manage team-family conflict and gives a practical approach using a case vignette.

Acquiescence is Not Agreement: The Problem of Marginalization in Pediatric Decision Making

Although parents are the default legal surrogate decision-makers for minor children in the U.S., shared decision making in a pluralistic society is often much more complicated, involving not just parents and pediatricians, but also grandparents, other relatives, and even community or religious elders. Parents may not only choose to involve others in their children's healthcare decisions but choose to defer to another; such deference does not imply agreement with the decision being made and adds complexity when disagreements arise between surrogate decision-makers for minor children and their physicians. I argue that clinicians and ethicists have a duty to consider voices marginalized by hierarchical structures, including but not limited to gender-based inequalities. This approach involves negotiating potential conflicts: between respecting differences of culture and religion, on one hand, and assuring that the wishes of those who are most invested in children's lives are considered, on the other.

Decision-Making at End-of-Life for Children With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Bioethical Analysis

Background

Evidence shows that medical education includes a variety of basic and clinical skills. Ethical and human values are not typically considered in medical school curricula, and this is evident in medical practice in certain scenarios such as decision-making at pediatric cancer patients' end of life.

Methods

This study explores a bioethical approach to address complex decision-making at the end of life in children and adolescents with cancer. We are a cross-functional group of scientists from several academic disciplines who conducted a systematic review of the literature using our newly developed meta-bioethical analysis and synthesis of findings. The search was carried out in five databases, resulting in 10 research papers. Following quality screening, seven articles were ultimately selected for further analysis.

Results

Our focus is on the state of the art to better understand the bioethical deliberation at the end of life in pediatric oncology. Here, we report a systematic review that includes (i) classification of the screened articles by the type of decision-making they use, ii) the system values that are at the core of the decision-making at the end of life, and iii) bioethical and ethical discernment queries. We conclude with a discussion regarding the best practices of ethical discernment and decision-making at the end of life.This study highlights the need to develop more research to better understand the influence and origin of these multidimensional factors determining critical decisions that define the quality of life of patients in a highly sensitive moment.

Conclusion

We conclude that personal aspects of the physician define their actions more than knowledge or organized structure. It is thus necessary that pediatric oncologists receive ethics and humanistic education.

Pediatric Cardiology Specialist's Opinions Toward the Acceptability of Comfort Care for Congenital Heart Disease

In order to evaluate physicians' willingness to seek legal action to mandate surgery when parents refuse surgery for various congenital heart lesions, we surveyed pediatric cardiologists and cardiovascular surgeons at 4 children's hospitals. We asked whether physicians would support parental refusal of surgery for specific heart defects and, if not, whether they would seek legal action to mandate surgery. We then analyzed associations between physicians' willingness to mandate surgery and national operative mortality rates for each lesion. We surveyed 126 cardiologists and 9 cardiac surgeons at four tertiary referral centers. Overall response rate was 77%. Greater than 70% of physicians would seek legal action and mandate surgery for the following lesions: ventricular septal defect, coarctation of the aorta, complete atrioventricular canal, transposition of the great arteries, tetralogy of Fallot, and unobstructed total anomalous pulmonary venous return. Surgery for all of these lesions has reported mortality rates of < 5%. Physicians were less likely to seek legal action when parents refused surgery for Shone complex, any single ventricle lesion, or any congenital heart disease accompanied by Trisomy 13 or Trisomy 18. Among experts in pediatric cardiology, there is widespread agreement about the appropriate response to parental refusal of surgery for most congenital heart lesions, and these lesions tended to be heart defects with lower surgical mortality rates. Lesions for which there was greater consensus among experts were those with the best outcomes. There was less consensus for lesions with higher mortality rates. Such surveys, revealing disagreement among expert professionals, can provide an operational definition of the current professional "gray zone" in which parental preferences should determine treatment.