Are newborns morally different from older children?

Continuous Deep Sedation Until Death of Children at the End of Life: French Physicians' Opinions

Objectives: To evaluate physicians' opinions concerning continuous deep sedation until death (CDSUD) and implementation of Claeys-Leonetti; a law intended to be applicable to all patients, but without a specific framework for children thus giving rise to ethically and legally complex situations. The secondary objective was to identify if physicians' characteristics could influence their opinions. Study Design: This was a national, multicenter, noninterventional cross-sectional survey from January 30, 2020, until March 1, 2020. The target population consisted of French physicians involved in children's end-of-life situations. The validated questionnaire explored respondents' characteristics and their opinions on four hypothetical pediatric clinical cases. Results: Analysis was conducted on 391 respondents. The oncological situation was more easily recognized as end of life compared with the neurological pathology (77% vs. 40.4%). Dependence on mechanical ventilation was another major factor influencing physicians in identifying end-of-life situations. Physicians clearly recognized the difference in intention between CDSUD and euthanasia. They accepted to implement CDSUD more easily in newborns. The withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration gave rise to divergent opinions. Respondents were in favor of adolescents' decision-making autonomy and their access to drafting advance directives. The child's best interest prevailed in case of objection by parents, except in situations outside the law's framework or in cases of disagreement within the health care team. Conclusion: Results of our study showed differences in the interpretation of the law concerning the CDSUD application framework and provide elements for reflection, which may ultimately contribute to the development of specific guidelines in CDSUD in children at the end of life.

End of life care in the setting of extreme prematurity - practical challenges and ethical controversies

While the underlying principles are the same, there are differences in practice in end of life decisions and care for extremely preterm infants compared with other newborns and older children. In this paper, we review end of life care for extremely preterm infants in the delivery room and in the neonatal intensive care unit. We identify potential justifications for differences in the end of life care in this population as well as practical and ethical challenges.

Neonatal neuropalliative care

Neonatal neuropalliative care is directed toward patients and families impacted by serious, life limiting, or debilitating neurologic illness in the antenatal and newborn period. This chapter will outline key considerations for clinicians hoping to provide a neuropalliative care approach antenatally, at birth, and in the neonatal intensive care unit. We focus on three core domains: (1) family-centered communication and care, (2) prognostication and decision-making, and (3) pain and symptom management. In each domain, we outline key considerations in the antenatal period, at birth, and in the neonatal intensive care unit. We also address special considerations in care at the end of life and in varied cultural and practice contexts. We conclude with suggestions for future research and key considerations for neonatal clinicians who wish to incorporate a neuropalliative approach to care into their practice.

Postponed Withholding: Balanced Decision-Making at the Margins of Viability

Advances in neonatology have led to improved survival for periviable infants. Immaturity still carries a high risk of short- and long-term harms, and uncertainty turns provision of life support into an ethical dilemma. Shared decision-making with parents has gained ground. However, the need to start immediate life support and the ensuing difficulty of withdrawing treatment stands in tension with the possibility of a fair decision-making process. Both the parental "instinct of saving" and "withdrawal resistance" involved can preclude shared decision-making. To help health care personnel and empower parents, we propose a novel approach labeled "postponed withholding." In the absence of a prenatal advance directive, life support is started at birth, followed by planned redirection to palliative care after one week, unless parents, after a thorough counseling process, actively ask for continued life support. Despite the emotional challenges, this approach can facilitate ethically balanced decision-making processes in the gray zone.

Ethical considerations in the use of artificial womb/placenta technology

Despite improvements in survival over the past few decades, pulmonary immaturity and the use of mechanical ventilation have stunted reduction in short- and long-term morbidities for infants at the borderline of viability (22-24 weeks of gestation). It has long been suspected that the use of an artificial womb or artificial placenta to preserve native fetal physiology and maintain fluid- rather than air-filled lungs would help to improve outcomes for these infants. As such, several institutions have ongoing efforts to develop this technology, bringing the field of neonatology within sight of clinical trials. Prior to use in humans, several important ethical issues should be considered and discussed, including the moral status of these patients and the term used to describe them, whether neonate, fetus, or another term entirely. These determinations will guide when it is appropriate to use the technology and when it is permissible to withdraw this support, as well as how to ascribe parental rights and the legal status of these patients.

Whom are we seeking to protect? Extremely preterm babies and moral distress

Advances in perinatal care bring with them ethical challenges and difficult questions. When should we provide life-sustaining interventions, and who should decide? Particularly at the edges of viability, some clinicians may feel required to provide a level of care that they believe is not in the patient's interests, resulting in moral distress. This article will discuss the complex nature of moral distress arising during the care of extremely preterm babies. It will describe the challenges and cognitive biases present when contemplating potential harms to the baby and recognize the possible costs to both healthcare provider and baby when moral distress arises. Both clinicians caring for extremely preterm babies and the families themselves can experience moral distress. This article argues that for clinicians, recognizing the range of possible sources of moral distress is vital in order to appropriately address moral distress. Moral distress may arise from a desire to protect the baby, but also from an impulse to protect oneself from the emotional burdens of care. Addressing moral distress requires reflection on the factual beliefs, experiences and personal values which lie behind the distress, both within oneself and in discussion with colleagues. Moral distress indicates that a situation is ethically challenging, but it does not necessarily mean that a wrong decision has been made.

Neuropalliative Care for Neonates

Many childhood neurologic conditions are first diagnosed in the perinatal period and shorten or seriously alter the lives of affected infants. Neonatal neuropalliative care incorporates core practices and teachings of both neurology and palliative care and is directed toward patients and families affected by serious neurologic conditions in the antenatal and immediate newborn period. This review outlines key considerations for neurologists hoping to provide a neuropalliative care approach antenatally, in the neonatal intensive care unit, and around hospital discharge. We explore 4 core domains of neuropalliative care: (1) family-centered communication, (2) prognostication, (3) decision making, and (4) pain and symptom management. We address special considerations in care at the end of life and in varied cultural and practice contexts.

The Moral Foundations of Child Health and Social Policies: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis

Background: Allusions to the uniqueness and value of childhood abound in academic, lay, and policy discourse. However, little clarity exists on the values that guide child health and social policy-making. We review extant academic literature on the normative dimensions of child health and social policy to provide foundations for the development of child-focused public policies. Methods: We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis of academic literature on the normative dimensions of child health and social policy-making. We employed a social constructivist lens to interpret emergent themes. Political theory on the social construction of target populations served as a bridge between sociologies of childhood and public policy analysis. Results: Our database searches returned 14,658 unique articles; full text review yielded 72 relevant articles. Purposive sampling of relevant literature complemented our electronic searches, adding 51 original articles, for a total of 123 articles. Our analysis of the literature reveals three central themes: potential, rights, and risk. These themes retain relevance in diverse policy domains. A core set of foundational concepts also cuts across disciplines: well-being, participation, and best interests of the child inform debate on the moral and legal dimensions of a gamut of child social policies. Finally, a meta-theme of embedding encompasses the pervasive issue of a child’s place, in the family and in society, which is at the heart of much social theory and applied analysis on children and childhood. Conclusions: Foundational understanding of the moral language and dominant policy frames applied to children can enrich analyses of social policies for children. Most societies paint children as potent, vulnerable, entitled, and embedded. It is the admixture of these elements in particular policy spheres, across distinct places and times, that often determines the form of a given policy and societal reactions to it. Subsequent work in this area will need to detail the degree and impact of variance in the values mix attached to children across sociocultural contexts and investigate tensions between what are and what ought to be the values that guide social policy development for children.

Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey

OBJECTIVE

Preferences of members of the public are recognized as important inputs into health care priority-setting, though knowledge of such preferences is scant. We sought to generate evidence of public preferences related to healthcare resource allocation among adults and children.

METHODS

We conducted an experimental stated preference survey in a national sample of Canadian adults. Preferences were elicited across a range of scenarios and scored on a visual analogue scale. Intervention group participants were randomized to a moral reasoning exercise prior to each choice task. The main outcomes were the differences in mean preference scores by group, scenario, and demographics.

RESULTS

Our results demonstrate a consistent preference by participants to allocate scarce health system resources to children. Exposure to the moral reasoning exercise weakened but did not eliminate this preference. Younger respondent age and parenthood were associated with greater preference for children. The top principles guiding participants' allocative decisions were treat equally, relieve suffering, and rescue those at risk of dying.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study affirms the relevance of age in public preferences for the allocation of scarce health care resources, demonstrating a significant preference by participants to allocate healthcare resources to children. However, this preference diminishes when challenged by exposure to a range of moral principles, revealing a strong public endorsement of equality of access. Definitions of value in healthcare based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness may exclude moral considerations that the public values, such as equality and humanitarianism, highlighting opportunities to enrich healthcare priority-setting through public engagement.

Ethics of resuscitation for extremely premature infants: a systematic review of argument-based literature

OBJECTIVE

To present (1) the ethical concepts related to the debate on resuscitation of extremely premature infants (EPIs) as they are described in the ethical literature; and (2) the ethical arguments based on these concepts.

DESIGN

We conducted a systematic review of the ethical literature. We selected articles based on the following predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria: (1) English language articles (2) presenting fully elaborated ethical arguments (3) on resuscitation (4) of EPIs, that is, infants born before 28 weeks of gestation.

ANALYSIS

After repeated reading of articles, we developed individual summaries, conceptual schemes and an overall conceptual scheme. Ethical arguments and concepts were identified and analysed.

RESULTS

Forty articles were included out of 4709 screened. Personhood, best interest, autonomy and justice were concepts grounding the various arguments. Regarding these concepts, included authors agreed that the best interest principle should guide resuscitation decisions, whereas justice seemed the least important concept. The arguments addressed two questions: Should we resuscitate EPIs? Who should decide? Included authors agreed that not all EPIs should be resuscitated but disagreed on what criteria should ground this decision. Overall, included authors agreed that both parents and physicians should contribute to the decision.

CONCLUSIONS

The included publications suggest that while the best interest is the main concept guiding resuscitation decisions, justice is the least important. The included authors also agree that both parents and physicians should be actively involved in resuscitation decisions for EPIs. However, our results suggest that parents' decision should be over-ridden when in contrast with the EPI's best interest.

The Extremely Preterm Infant: Ethical Considerations in Life-and-Death Decision-Making

Care of the preterm infant has improved tremendously over the last 60 years, with attendant improvement in outcomes. For the extremely preterm infant, <28 weeks' gestation, concerns related to survival as well as neurodevelopmental impairment, have influenced decision-making to a much larger extent than seen in older children. Possible reasons for conferring a different status on extremely preterm infants include: (1) the belief that the brain is a privileged organ, (2) the degree of medical uncertainty in terms of outcomes, (3) the fact that the family will deal with the psychological, emotional, physical, and financial consequences of treatment decisions, (4) that the extremely preterm looks more like a fetus than a term newborn, (5) the initial lack of relational identity, (6) the fact that extremely preterm infants are technology-dependent, and (7) the timing of decision-making around delivery. Treating extremely preterm infants differently does not hold up to scrutiny. They are owed the same respect as other pediatric patients, in terms of personhood, and we have the same duties to care for them. However, the degree of medical uncertainty and the fact that parents will deal with the consequences of decision-making, highlights the importance of providing a wide band of discretion in parental decision-making authority. Ethical principles considered in decision-making include best interest (historically the sine qua non of pediatric decision-making), a reasonable person standard, the "good enough" parent, and the harm principle, the latter two being more pragmatic. To operationalize these principles, potential models for decision-making are the Zone of Parental Discretion, the Not Unreasonable Standard, and a Shared Decision-Making model. In the final analysis shared decision-making with a wide zone of parental discretion, which is based on the harm principle, would provide fair and equitable decision-making for the extremely preterm infant. However, in the rare circumstance where parents do not wish to embark upon intensive care, against medical recommendations, it would be most helpful to develop local guidelines both for support of health care practitioners and to provide consistency of care for extremely preterm infants.

A Cross-sectional Study Among Healthcare and Non-healthcare Students in Slovenia and Croatia About Do-not Resuscitate Decision-making

Objective

To survey university students on their views concerning the respect for autonomy of patients and the best interest of patients in relation to the withholding of resuscitation.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey among university students of medicine, nursing, philosophy, law and theology of the first and the final study years at the University of Ljubljana and the University of Zagreb was conducted during the academic year of 2016/2017. A questionnaire constructed by Janiver et al. presenting clinical case vignettes was used.

Results

The survey response rates for students in Ljubljana and Zagreb were 45.4% (512 students) and 37.9% (812 students), respectively. The results of our research show statistically significant differences in do-not resuscitate decisions in different cases between medical and non-medical students in both countries. Male and religious students in both countries have lower odds of respecting relatives’ wishes for the withholding of resuscitation (odds ratio 0.49–0.54; 95% confidence interval). All students agreed that they would first resuscitate children if they had to prioritize among patients.

Conclusions

Our study clearly shows that gender, religious beliefs, and type of study are important factors associated with the decisions pertaining to the respect for autonomy, patient’s best interest, and initiation or withholding of resuscitation.

Principlism and Personalism. Comparing Two Ethical Models Applied Clinically in Neonates Undergoing Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a technology used to temporarily assist critically ill patients with acute and reversible life-threatening cardiac and/or respiratory failure. This technology can often be lifesaving but is also associated with several complications that may contribute to reduced survival. Currently, neonates supported with ECMO are complex and bear an increased risk of mortality. This means that clinicians must be particularly prepared not only to deal with complex clinical scenarios, but also ethical issues associated with ECMO. In particular, clinicians should be trained to handle unsuccessful ECMO runs with attention to high quality end of life care. Within this manuscript we will compare and contrast the application of two ethical frameworks, used in the authors' institutions (Toronto and Rome). This is intended to enhance a broader understanding of cultural differences in applied ethics which is useful to the clinician in an increasingly multicultural and diverse patient mix.

Ethical and end of life considerations for neonates requiring ECMO support

ECMO has proven to be a life-saving intervention for a variety of disease entities with a high rate of survival in the neonatal population. However, ECMO requires clinical teams to engage in many ethical considerations. Even with ongoing improvements in technology and expertise, some patients will not survive a course of ECMO. An unsuccessful course of ECMO can be difficult to accept and cause a great deal of angst. These questions can result in real conflict both within the care team, and between the care team and the family. Herein we explore a range of ethical considerations that may be encountered when caring for a patient on ECMO, with a particular focus on those courses where it appears likely that the patient will not survive. We then consider how a palliative care approach may provide a tool set to help engage the team and family in confronting the difficult decision to discontinue ECMO.

Saving or Creating: Which Are We Doing When We Resuscitate Extremely Preterm Infants?

Neonatal intensive care units represent simultaneously one of the great success stories of modern medicine, and one of its most controversial developments. One particularly controversial issue is the resuscitation of extremely preterm infants. Physicians in the United States generally accept that they are required to resuscitate infants born as early as 25 weeks and that it is permissible to resuscitate as early as 22 weeks. In this article, I question the moral pressure to resuscitate by criticizing the idea that resuscitation in this context "saves" a human life. Our radical medical advancements have allowed us to intervene in the life of a human before it makes sense to say that such an intervention "saves" someone; rather, what the physician does in resuscitating and treating an extremely preterm infant is to take over creating it. This matters, I argue, because "rescues" are much more morally urgent than "creations."

Attitudes towards decisions about extremely premature infants differed between Swiss linguistic regions in population-based study

AIM

Studies have provided insights into the different attitudes and values of healthcare professionals and parents towards extreme prematurity. This study explored societal attitudes and values in Switzerland with regard to this patient group.

METHODS

A nationwide trilingual telephone survey was conducted in the French-, German- and Italian-speaking regions of Switzerland to explore the general population's attitudes and values with regard to extreme prematurity. Swiss residents of 18 years or older were recruited from the official telephone registry using quota sampling and a logistic regression model assessed the influence of socio-demographic factors on end-of-life decision-making.

RESULTS

Of the 5112 people contacted, 1210 (23.7%) participated. Of these 5% were the parents of a premature infant and 26% knew parents with a premature infant. Most participants (77.8%) highlighted their strong preference for shared decision-making, and 64.6% said that if there was dissent then the parents should have the final word. Overall, our logistic regression model showed that regional differences were the most significant factors influencing decision-making.

CONCLUSION

The majority of the Swiss population clearly favoured shared decision-making. The context of sociocultural demographics, especially the linguistic region in which the decision-making took place, strongly influenced attitudes towards extreme prematurity and decision-making.

International variations in application of the best-interest standard across the age spectrum

OBJECTIVE

Ethically and legally, assertions that resuscitation is in a patient's best interest should be inversely correlated with willingness to forego intensive care (and accept comfort care) at the surrogate's request. Previous single country studies have demonstrated a relative devaluation of neonates when compared with other critically ill patients.

STUDY DESIGN

In this international study, physicians in Argentina, Australia, Canada, Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway and the United States were presented with eight hypothetical vignettes of incompetent critically ill patients of different ages. They were asked to make assessments about best interest, respect for surrogate autonomy and to rank the patients in a triage scenario.

RESULTS

In total, 2237 physicians responded (average response rate 61%). In all countries and scenarios, participants did not accept to withhold resuscitation if they estimated it was in the patient's best interest, except for scenarios involving neonates. Young children (other than neonates) were given high priority for resuscitation, regardless of existing disability. For neonates, surrogate autonomy outweighed assessment of best interest. In all countries, a 2-month-old-infant with meningitis and a multiply disabled 7-year old were resuscitated first in the triage scenario, with more variable ranking of the two neonates, which were ranked below patients with considerably worse prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The value placed on the life of newborns is less than that expected according to predicted clinical outcomes and current legal and ethical theory relative to best interests. Value assessments on the basis of age, disability and prognosis appear to transcend culture, politics and religion in this domain.

A Pilot Study of Neonatologists' Decision-Making Roles in Delivery Room Resuscitation Counseling for Periviable Births

BACKGROUND

Relatively little is known about neonatologists' roles in helping families navigate the difficult decision to attempt or withhold resuscitation for a neonate delivering at the threshold of viability. Therefore, we aimed to describe the "decision-making role" of neonatologists in simulated periviable counseling sessions.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative content analysis of audio-recorded simulation encounters and post-encounter debriefing interviews collected as part of a single-center simulation study of neonatologists' resuscitation counseling practices in the face of ruptured membranes at 23 weeks gestation. We trained standardized patients to request a recommendation if the physician presented multiple treatment options. We coded each encounter for communication behaviors, applying an adapted, previously developed coding scheme to classify physicians into four decision-making roles (informative, facilitative, collaborative, or directive). We also coded post-simulation debriefing interviews for responses to the open-ended prompt: "During this encounter, what did you feel was your role in the management decision-making process?"

RESULTS

Fifteen neonatologists (33% of the division) participated in the study; audio-recorded debriefing interviews were available for 13. We observed 9 (60%) take an informative role, providing medical information only; 2 (13%) take a facilitative role, additionally eliciting the patient's values; 3 (20%) take a collaborative role, additionally engaging the patient in deliberation and providing a recommendation; and 1 (7%) take a directive role, making a treatment decision independent of the patient. Almost all (10/13, 77%) of the neonatologists described their intended role as informative.

CONCLUSIONS

Neonatologists did not routinely elicit preferences, engage in deliberation, or provide treatment recommendations-even in response to requests for recommendations. These findings suggest there may be a gap between policy recommendations calling for shared decision making and actual clinical practice.

Integrating neurocritical care approaches into neonatology: should all infants be treated equitably?

To improve the neurologic outcomes for infants with brain injury, neonatal providers are increasingly implementing neurocritical care approaches into clinical practice. Term infants with brain injury have been principal beneficiaries of neurologically-integrated care models to date, as evidenced by the widespread adoption of therapeutic hypothermia protocols for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. Innovative therapeutic and diagnostic support for very low birth weight infants with brain injury has lagged behind. Given that concern for significant future neurodevelopmental impairment can lead to decisions to withdraw life supportive care at any gestational age, providing families with accurate prognostic information is essential for all infants. Current variable application of multidisciplinary neurocritical care approaches to infants at different gestational ages may be ethically problematic and reflect distinct perceptions of brain injury for infants born extremely premature.

Cost comparison of mechanically ventilated patients across the age span

OBJECTIVE

To compare the use of mechanical ventilation and hospital costs across ventilated patients of all ages, preterm through adults, in a nationally representative sample.

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of the 2009 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality National Inpatient Sample.

RESULTS

A total of 1 107 563 (2.8%) patients received mechanical ventilation. For surviving ventilated patients, median costs for infants ⩽32 weeks' gestation were $51000 to $209 000, whereas median costs for older patients were lower from $17 000 to $25 000. For non-surviving ventilated patients, median costs were $27 000 to $39 000 except at the extremes of age; the median cost was $10 000 for <24 week newborns and $14 000 for 91+ year adults. Newborns of all gestational ages had a disproportionate share of hospital costs relative to their total volume.

CONCLUSION

Most intensive care unit resources at the extremes of age are not directed toward non-surviving patients. From a perinatal perspective, attention should be directed toward improving outcomes and reducing costs for all infants, not just at the earliest gestational ages.

Attitudes of Australian neonatologists to resuscitation of extremely preterm infants

AIM

We aimed to investigate how Australian neonatologists made decisions when incompetent patients of different ages needed resuscitation.

METHODS

A survey including vignettes of eight incompetent patients requiring resuscitation was sent to 140 neonatologists. Patients ranged from a very preterm infant to 80 years old. While some had existing impairments, all faced risk of death or neurological sequelae. Respondents indicated whether they would resuscitate, whether they believed resuscitation was in the patients' best interests, whether they would want intervention for a family member and whether they would comply with families' wishes to withhold resuscitation. They were also asked how they would rank the eight patients in a triage situation.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight per cent of specialists completed the survey. The majority of respondents gave priority to the resuscitation of children over adults. Less than 40% would agree to withhold resuscitation at families' request for all children except for the preterm infant, where 96% would comply with families' wishes to withhold intensive care despite 77% believing resuscitation to be in the infant's best interest.

CONCLUSION

This study found inconsistencies between physicians' perceptions of the patient's best interest regarding resuscitation and their willingness to comply with families' wishes to withhold resuscitation and give comfort care. Accepting a family's refusal of resuscitation was more marked for the premature infant, even among respondents who thought that resuscitation was in the patient's best interest. These findings are consistent with other international studies.

End-of-life decisions for extremely low-gestational-age infants: why simple rules for complicated decisions should be avoided

Interventions for extremely preterm infants bring up many ethical questions. Guidelines for intervention in the "periviable" period generally divide infants using predefined categories, such as "futile," "beneficial," and "gray zone" based on completed 7-day periods of gestation; however, such definitions often differ among countries. The ethical justification for using gestational age as the determination of the category boundaries is rarely discussed. Rational criteria used to make decisions regarding life-sustaining interventions must incorporate other important prognostic information. Precise guidelines based on imprecise data are not rational. Gestational age-based guidelines include an implicit judgment of what is deemed to be an unacceptably poor chance of "intact" survival but fail to explore the determination of acceptability. Furthermore, unclear definitions of severe disability, the difficulty, or impossibility, of accurately predicting outcome in the prenatal or immediate postnatal period make such simplistic formulae inappropriate. Similarly, if guidelines for intervention for the newborn are based on the "qualitative futility" of survival, it should be explicitly stated and justified according to established ethical guidelines. They should discuss whether newborn infants are morally different to older individuals or explain why thresholds recommended for intervention are different to recommendations for those in older persons. The aim should be to establish individualized goals of care with families while recognizing uncertainty, rather than acting on labels derived from gestational age categories alone.

Modes of death in pediatrics: differences in the ethical approach in neonatal and pediatric patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare end-of-life decisions for neonatal and pediatric patients.

STUDY DESIGN

This study involved a chart review of all pediatric deaths occurring over a 2-year period at a large maternal-child university hospital. Modes of death were compared.

RESULTS

Of the 220 deaths analyzed, 145 occurred in intensive care units (ICUs), including 77 in the neonatal ICU (NICU) and 68 in the pediatric ICU (PICU). Only 6% of deaths were preceded by cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Dying while on the respirator was the most common mode of death in the PICU (51%) and the least common in the NICU (5%; P<.05). Unstable physiology at time of death was much more common in the PICU (82% vs 47%; P<.05). Withdrawal of life-sustaining interventions (LSI) in stable patients for quality of life reasons was the most common cause of death in the NICU (53% vs 16%; P<.05). Seventy-five children died outside of an ICU because LSI were withheld; neonates died mainly of extreme prematurity, and older children died mainly from terminal illness.

CONCLUSION

The majority of pediatric deaths occur in ICUs. Modes of death in the NICU and the PICU are strikingly different. A greater proportion of deaths in the NICU occur in infants with stable physiology who might not have died had LSI not been withdrawn. Most deaths outside of ICUs are attributable to withholding of LSI. A significant proportion of neonates in whom LSI are withheld have a possibility of intact survival, unlike older patients.

Challenges in reconciling best interest and parental exercise of autonomy in pediatric life-or-death situations

OBJECTIVE

To study attitudes regarding life-saving interventions.

STUDY DESIGN

An Internet questionnaire describing 6 patients of different ages needing resuscitation was sent to members of the Norwegian Pediatric Association (n = 676): a 24-week gestational age infant, a term infant, a 2-month-old infant, a 7-year, a 50-year, and an 80-year-old individual. Neonates had similar or better described outcomes than older patients.

RESULTS

A total of 266 people responded (39.4%). The majority would resuscitate all the patients except the 80-year-old. The majority thought that resuscitation was in the best interest of the younger 5 patients, but fewer thought so for neonates (P < .05). Although the majority of the respondents thought that resuscitation was in the neonates' best interest (71% for 24-week-old and 75% for term infant), significantly more would accept comfort care at parental demand (62% for 24-week-old and 72% for term infant), unlike for other scenarios. Quality of life was used to justify decision making; 25% used the length of the life for neonates to motivate their answers. Patients were prioritized for resuscitation in the following order: 2-month-old infant, 7-year-old child with multiple disabilities, 50-year-old adult, the neonates, and lastly the 80-year-old individual.

CONCLUSION

There are challenges in reconciling best interest and parental exercise of autonomy in pediatric life-or-death situations. Neonates seem to be devalued.

Why do we treat the newborn differently?

End-of-life decisions are often taken in neonatology, based on widely accepted guidelines, to avoiding futile therapies. Usually, the criteria upon which these guidelines rely are different from those used for older patients, even when patients require a guardian to decide on their behalf. Main differences are the weight of parental interests and the probabilistic base of the choice. A careful analysis of the literature found three main reasons of this difference: the obsolescence of the guidelines criteria, the difficulty to distinguish between parents' and babies' interests and the neonatologist's responsibility to prolong a life with the prospective of severe disability. In conclusion, the future guidelines for newborn end-of-life decisions should follow at least the same moral criteria used for older patients.

Historical notes on immaturity. Part 2: surviving against the odds

Survivors of immaturity of outstanding intelligence include Fortunio Licetus, born in 1577, and Isaac Newton, born in 1643. Reliable descriptions began appearing around 1820, and over a dozen infants were born weighing under 1000 g and before World War II, who developed normally. From 1876 to 2006, the birth weight at which half of the infants survived dropped from 2200 to 600 g. Statistics depended on how abortion, stillbirth and live birth were defined, which differed greatly from country to country. WHO definitions in 1993 required the registration of all infants weighing 500 g (22 complete weeks) or above. This definition was not universally adopted, resulting in considerable underreporting. Many medical societies issued ethical recommendations concerning the obligatory or optional treatment of immature infants. The "window", at which treatment is optional has been set at 22-23 weeks (Japan, Germany), 23-24 weeks (UK, USA, Canada), or 24-26 weeks (France, Netherlands, Switzerland). Instead of assessing an infant's individual prognosis, and ignoring its gender, co-morbidities, and particular cause of premature delivery, these rules frequently relied on gestational age alone to initiate or withhold life support.

Historical notes on immaturity. Part 1: measures of viability

The interest in the limit of viability originated from various sources, including legal requirements, the rejection of mechnical life support, competition for resources, concerns about handicaps, and proximity to the fetus with its limited rights. Gestational age was determined from menstrual history by Hippocratic writers, who established the tenacious idea that 7-, but not 8-month infants could survive. Naegele's rule, already published by Boerhaave in 1744, was correct when applied to the last day of menstruation. Birth weight and length were not measured until the end of the 18(th) century. This remarkable disinterest resulted from superstition, grossly inaccurate measurements by the authorities Mauriceau and Smellie, and the conversion chaos of the pre-metric era. A table is provided with historic mass and length units allowing to determine birth weight and body length in the older literature. The idea of viability is a remnant of vitalism, a medical doctrine popularized in 1780 by Brown. Many short-lived statements defined its limit, but until now what was meant by viability remained nebulous.

A life worth giving? The threshold for permissible withdrawal of life support from disabled newborn infants

When is it permissible to allow a newborn infant to die on the basis of their future quality of life? The prevailing official view is that treatment may be withdrawn only if the burdens in an infant's future life outweigh the benefits. In this paper I outline and defend an alternative view. On the Threshold View, treatment may be withdrawn from infants if their future well-being is below a threshold that is close to, but above the zero-point of well-being. I present four arguments in favor of the Threshold View, and identify and respond to several counter-arguments. I conclude that it is justifiable in some circumstances for parents and doctors to decide to allow an infant to die even though the infant's life would be worth living. The Threshold View provides a justification for treatment decisions that is more consistent, more robust, and potentially more practical than the standard view.

Do neonatologists limit parental decision-making authority? A Canadian perspective

BACKGROUND

According to the principles of family-centered care, fully informed parents and health care professionals are partners in the care of sick neonates.

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the attitudes of Canadian neonatologists towards the authority of parents to make life-and-death decisions for their babies.

STUDY DESIGN

We interviewed 121 (74%) of the 164 practicing neonatologists in Canada (June 2004-March 2005), using scripted open-ended questions and common clinical scenarios. Data analysis employed interpretive description methodology.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome measure was the intention of neonatologists to limit parental life-and-death decision-making authority, when they disagree with parental decisions.

RESULTS

Neonatologists' self-rated respect for parental decision-making authority was 8/10. Most neonatologists thought that parents should be either primary decision-makers or part of the decision-making team. Fifty-six percent of neonatologists would limit parental decision-making authority if the parents' decision is not in the baby's "best interest". In response to common neonatal severe illness scenarios, up to 18% of neonatologists said they would limit parental decision-making, even if the chance of intact survival is very poor. For clinical scenarios with equally poor long-term outcomes, neonatologists were more likely to comply with parental wishes early in the life of a baby, particularly with documented brain injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Canadian neonatologists espouse high regard for parental decision-making authority, but are prepared to limit parental authority if the parents' decision is not thought to be in the baby's best interest. Although neonatologists advise parents that treatment can be started at birth, and stopped later, this was only for early severe brain injury.

How much weight should we give to parental interests in decisions about life support for newborn infants?

Life-sustaining treatment is sometimes withdrawn or withheld from critically ill newborn infants with poor prognosis. Guidelines relating to such decisions place emphasis on the best interests of the infant. However, in practice, parental views and parental interests are often taken into consideration. In this paper I draw on the example of newborn infants with severe muscle weakness (for example spinal muscular atrophy). I provide two arguments that parental interests should be given some weight in decisions about treatment, and that they should be given somewhat more weight in decisions about newborns than for older children. Firstly, the interests of the infant and of parents intersect, and are hard to separate. Parents' views about treatment may be relevant to an assessment of the infant's interests, and they may also affect those interests. Secondly, the interests of the infant in her future are relatively reduced by her developmental immaturity. In some situations parents' welfare interests outweigh those of the infant. However, I argue that this would not justify treatment limitation except in the setting of severe impairment.

How old are you? Newborn gestational age discriminates neonatal resuscitation practices in the Italian debate

Background

Multidisciplinary study groups have produced documents in an attempt to support decisions regarding whether to resuscitate "at risk" newborns or not. Moreover, there has been an increasingly insistent request for juridical regulation of neonatal resuscitation practices as well as for clarification of the role of parents in decisions regarding this kind of assistance. The crux of the matter is whether strict guidelines, reference standards based on the parameter of gestational age and authority rules are necessary.

Discussion

The Italian scenario reflects the current animated debate, illustrating the difficulty intrinsic in rigid guidelines on the subject, especially when gestational age is taken as a reference parameter for the medical decision.

Summary

Concerning the decision to interrupt or not to initiate resuscitation procedures on low gestational age newborns, physicians do not need rigid rules based on inflexible gestational age and birth weight guidelines. Guidance in addressing the difficult and trying issues associated with infants born at the margins of viability with a realistic assessment of the infant's clinical condition must be based on the infant's best interests, with clinicians and parents entering into what has been described as a "partnership of care".

Nobody likes premies: the relative value of patients' lives

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine whether patient selection or triage requires placing a relative value on human lives and whether the values placed on these lives are consistent with current ethical theories.

STUDY DESIGN

An anonymous questionnaire was administered to groups of physicians and students in Montreal. It presented eight currently incompetent patients with potential neurological sequelae requiring emergency care. Predicted outcomes were explicitly described. Four patients had a predicted 50% survival and a 50% chance of impairment; they were a preterm and a term neonate, a 2-month-old and a 50-year-old. Two already disabled patients, a 7-year-old and an 80-year-old, had 50% predicted survival. A 14-year-old and a 35-year-old had 5% survival, but differing impairment. Respondents were asked if they would resuscitate and in what order they would resuscitate if all needed intervention simultaneously.

RESULT

Eighty-five percent response rate, n=524. The proportion stating they would always resuscitate was smallest for the 80-year-old (18% P<0.001 compared to other patients), then the preterm (35%, P<0.001), then the term and the 50-year-old (53 and 58%, P<0.01). The 2-month-old and the 7-year-old would be resuscitated most frequently (74 and 77%, P<0.01), followed by the patients with 5% survival (64 and 68%, P<0.001). The median order of triage was first the 2-month-old, followed by the 7-year-old, the 14-year-old, the term newborn, the 50-year-old, the 35-year-old, the premature newborn and the 80-year-old.

CONCLUSION

Order of resuscitation was not closely related to the predicted survival, impairment or potential life years gained. Age appeared to have a strong influence, with children's lives being valued more than the adults'. This tendency was reversed for the newborn infants who were undervalued compared with older children, and most particularly for the premature. The value placed on the life of newborns, in particular the premature, is less than that expected by any objective medical data and was not consistent with any ethical theory that we tested.

Ethics ain't easy: do we need simple rules for complicated ethical decisions?

BACKGROUND

Recommendations from national bodies regarding extremely preterm infants have focussed almost exclusively on thresholds for intervention based upon estimated gestational age (GA) alone.

METHODS

We reviewed policy statements that address active intervention for newborn infants and compare them with those that are available for older patients. We reviewed research, examining attitudes towards preterm infants, uncertainties in GA assessment and other factors important in determining prognosis at the time of birth.

RESULTS

Policy statements regarding active care of very preterm infants treat this population differently from others in morally significant ways--without rationalizing this discrepancy. Extremely preterm infants are devalued in medical and lay opinion compared to older individuals with similar outcomes. Uncertainty in GA estimates often covers a range with vastly differing prognoses. Sex, birth weight, inborn-outborn status and use of antenatal steroids are vitally important in prognosis, but clinical findings in the delivery room are not. Most policy statements fail to account for these factors.

CONCLUSION

Simplistic policies based on GA alone should be avoided. Decision making for extremely preterm infants should recognize that they are each unique and must be individualized, taking into account all relevant prognostic factors and the values and wishes of the families.