Saving vs creating: perceptions of intensive care at different ages and the potential for injustice

Doctor-Parent Disagreement for Preterm Infants Born in the Grey Zone: Do Ethical Frameworks Help?

OBJECTIVE

To examine i) how ethical frameworks can be used in concrete cases of parent-doctors' disagreements for extremely preterm infants born in the grey zone to guide such difficult decision-making; and ii) what challenges stakeholders may encounter in using these frameworks.

DESIGN

We did a case analysis of a concrete case of parent-doctor disagreement in the grey zone using two ethical frameworks: the best interest standard and the zone of parental discretion.

RESULTS

Both ethical frameworks entailed similar advantages and challenges. They have the potential 1) to facilitate decision-making because they follow a structured method; 2) to clarify the situation because all relevant ethical issues are explored; and 3) to facilitate reaching an agreement because all parties can explain their views. We identified three main challenges. First, how to objectively evaluate the risk of severe disability. Second, parents' interests should be considered but it is not clear to what extent. Third, this is a value-laden situation and different people have different values, meaning that the frameworks are at least partially subjective.

CONCLUSIONS

These challenges do not mean that the ethical frameworks are faulty; rather, they reflect the complexity and the sensitivity of cases in the grey zone.

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.

Decision-making for extremely preterm infants with severe hemorrhages on head ultrasound: Science, values, and communication skills

Severe intracranial hemorrhages are not rare in extremely preterm infants. They occur early, generally when babies require life-sustaining interventions. This may lead to ethical discussions and decision-making about levels of care. Prognosis is variable and depends on the extent, location, and laterality of the lesions, and, importantly also on the subsequent occurrence of other clinical complications or progressive ventricular dilatation. Decision-making should depend on prognosis and parental values. This article will review prognosis and the uncertainty of outcomes for different lesions and provide an outline of ways to conduct an ethically appropriate discussion on the decision of whether to continue life sustaining therapy. It is possible to communicate in a compassionate and honest way with parents and engage in decision-making, focussing on personalized information and decisions, and on function, as opposed to diagnosis.

Guilt and Regret Experienced by Parents of Children Born Extremely Preterm

OBJECTIVES

To explore decisional regret of parents of babies born extremely preterm and analyze neonatal, pediatric, and parental factors associated with regret.

STUDY DESIGN

Parents of infants born <29 weeks of gestational age, aged between 18 months and 7 years, attending neonatal follow-up were enrolled. Hospital records were reviewed to examine morbidities and conversations with parents about levels of care. Parents were asked the following question: "Knowing what you know now, is there anything you would have done differently?" Mixed methods were used to analyze responses.

RESULTS

In total, 248 parents (98% participation) answered, and 54% reported they did not have regret. Of those who reported regret (n = 113), 3 themes were most frequently invoked: 35% experienced guilt, thinking they were responsible for the preterm birth; 28% experienced regret about self-care decisions; and 20% regretted decisions related to their parental role, generally wishing they knew sooner how to get involved. None reported regret about life-and-death decisions made at birth or in the neonatal intensive care unit. Impairment at follow-up, gestational age, and decisions about levels/reorientation of care were not associated with regret. More mothers reported feeling guilt about the preterm birth (compared with fathers); parents of children with severe lesions on ultrasonography of the head were less likely to report regret.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately one-half of the parents of infants born extremely preterm had regrets regarding their neonatal intensive care unit stay. Causes of regret and guilt should be addressed and minimized.

Ethical considerations in the management of infants with severe intraventricular hemorrhage

Intrinsic and extrinsic factors unique to neonatal care can complicate predictions of neurological outcomes for infants who suffer from severe intraventricular hemorrhage. While care decisions are driven by the same bioethical principles used in other domains, neurological prognostication can challenge concepts of futility, require careful examination of parental values, uncover biases and/or potentially compromise the best interests of the future child. In the following chapter we will review bioethical principles and relevant concepts, explore challenges to decision-making surrounding diagnoses of severe intraventricular hemorrhage and conclude with a brief review of practical approaches for counseling parents about neurodevelopmental impairment given the constraints of prognostic uncertainty and assumptions related to quality of life. We will argue that neurological findings alone, even in the setting of severe intraventricular hemorrhage, often do not constitute enough evidence for redirection of care but can be permissible when the entire neonatal condition is considered.

Personalized support of parents of extremely preterm infants before, during and after birth

The emotional turmoil associated with extremely preterm birth is inescapable parents. How each parent handles the unexpected, makes sense of the unknown and learns to parent their child is uniquely personal. A rigid standardized approach to support families through their journey before and during neonatal intensive care disregards this individuality. This article reviews general concepts and practices that can be learned and applied by clinicians to promote resiliency and help parents cope adaptively. This review will describe how to personalize parenting support during the antenatal consultation and hospitalization for parents of extremely premature infants. To facilitate this, mindsets and care delivery models need to shift from inflexible standardized protocols to flexible guidelines that enable personalized communications, support structures and care delivery models tailored to each person's characteristics, preferences, and values.

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.

Bereaved Parents: Insights for the Antenatal Consultation

OBJECTIVE

 The study aimed to explore experiences of extremely preterm infant loss in the delivery room and perspectives about antenatal consultation.

STUDY DESIGN

 Bereaved participants were interviewed, following a semi-structured protocol. Personal narratives were analyzed with a mixed-methods approach.

RESULTS

 In total, 13 participants, reflecting on 17 pregnancies, shared positive, healing and negative, harmful interactions with clinicians and institutions: feeling cared for or abandoned, doubted or believed, being treated rigidly or flexibly, and feeling that infant's life was valued or not. Participants stressed their need for personalized information, individualized approaches, and affective support. Their decision processes varied; some wanted different things for themselves than what they recommended for others. These interactions shaped their immediate experiences, long-term well-being, healing, and regrets. All had successful subsequent pregnancies; few returned to institutions where they felt poorly treated.

CONCLUSION

 Antenatal consultations can be strengthened by personalizing them, within a strong caregiver relationship and supportive institutional practices.

KEY POINTS

· Personalized antenatal consultations should strive to balance cognitive and affective needs.. · Including perspectives from bereaved parents can strengthen antenatal consultations.. · Trusting provider-parent partnerships are pivotal for risk communication..

Optimism bias in understanding neonatal prognoses

OBJECTIVE

Discrepancies between physician and parent neonatal prognostic expectations are common. Optimism bias is a possible explanation.

STUDY DESIGN

Parents interpreted hypothetical neonatal prognoses in an online survey.

RESULTS

Good prognoses tended to be interpreted accurately, while poor prognoses were interpreted as less than the stated value. One-third of participants consistently overstated survival for the three lowest prognoses, compared to the sample as a whole. Three significant predictors of such optimistic interpretations were single-parent status (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.2-0.75; p = 0.005), African-American descent (OR 3.78; 95% CI 1.63-8.98; p = 0.002) and the belief that physicians misrepresented prognoses (OR 3.11; 95% CI 1.47-6.65; p = 0.003). Participants' explanations echoed research on optimism bias in clinical and decision science studies.

CONCLUSION

Participants accepted positive prognoses for critically ill neonates, but reinterpreted negative ones as being unduly pessimistic demonstrating optimism bias.

A systematic concept analysis of 'technology dependent': challenging the terminology

There are an increasing number of children who are dependent on medical technology to sustain their lives. Although significant research on this issue is taking place, the terminology used is variable and the concept of technology dependence is ill-defined. A systematic concept analysis was conducted examining the attributes, antecedents, and consequences of the concept of technology dependent, as portrayed in the literature. We found that this concept refers to a wide range of clinical technology to support biological functioning across a dependency continuum, for a range of clinical conditions. It is commonly initiated within a complex biopsychosocial context and has wide ranging sequelae for the child and family, and health and social care delivery.Conclusion: The term technology dependent is increasingly redundant. It objectifies a heterogenous group of children who are assisted by a myriad of technology and who adapt to, and function with, this assistance in numerous ways. What is Known: • There are an increasing number of children who require medical technology to sustain their life, commonly referred to as technology dependent. This concept analysis critically analyses the relevance of the term technology dependent which is in use for over 30 years. What is New: • Technology dependency refers to a wide range of clinical technology to support biological functioning across a dependency continuum, for a range of clinical conditions. It is commonly initiated within a complex biopsychosocial context and has wide-ranging sequelae for the child and family, and health and social care delivery. • The paper shows that the term technology dependent is generally portrayed in the literature in a problem-focused manner. • This term is increasingly redundant and does not serve the heterogenous group of children who are assisted by a myriad of technology and who adapt to, and function with, this assistance in numerous ways. More appropriate child-centred terminology will be determined within the TechChild project.

Critical decision-making in neonatology and pediatrics: the I-P-O framework

Critical decision-making in neonatology and other areas of pediatrics often carries with it a complex and difficult ethical component. For any treatment under consideration, the impermissible-permissible-obligatory (I-P-O) spectrum provides a useful framework for determining how to proceed. Any proposed treatment can be located along this spectrum, and identified as either ethically impermissible, permissible, or obligatory. Treatments determined to be ethically impermissible should not be made available by physicians. Those deemed ethically permissible should be explained to parents, commonly with a specific recommendation. Informed parents should then be free to choose from among permissible options. Potential treatments deemed ethically obligatory should be provided to the patient, even in the face of parental objection. The fundamental ethical work in neonatology and pediatrics is determining where on the I-P-O spectrum a treatment under consideration should be located. This should be determined by the prognosis for the patient with and without the treatment, the feasibility of providing the treatment, and consideration of all relevant rights and obligations. Location on the line is dynamic, and clinicians should be open to movement of a given treatment along the spectrum as new information, particularly regarding effectiveness, toxicity, and/or alternatives, becomes available. This framework provides a structure for ethical conversation and decision-making related to a specific patient, as well as in the formation of institutional and national guidelines.

Caregiver burden in pediatric dialysis

In spite of improvements in expected survival, neurodevelopmental outcome, and quality of life, decision-making in neonatal dialysis remains controversial in high-resource countries. In part, this may be based upon the significant burdens experienced by the child, and also those experienced by the parents as caregivers. Emerging research offers a clearer description of the burdens experienced by dialysis caregivers worldwide. Caregiver burden represents an important area for nephrologists to advocate for patients and their families; however, nephrologists must also recognize the realities caregivers currently experience. Incorporation of caregiver burden into medical decision-making for children with end-stage kidney disease is necessary, but raises several ethical concerns.

Relational suffering and the moral authority of love and care

Suffering is a ubiquitous yet elusive concept in health care. In a field devoted to the pursuit of objective data, suffering is a phenomenon with deep ties to subjective experience, moral values, and cultural norms. Suffering's tie to subjective experience makes it challenging to discern and respond to the suffering of others. In particular, the question of whether a child with profound neurocognitive disabilities can suffer has generated a robust discourse, rooted in philosophical conceptualizations of personhood as well as the academic and experiential expertise of practiced health-care professionals. The issue remains unresolved because it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to ever truly know an infant's lived experience. But what if this is not the best question? What if instead of asking "can this infant suffer?" the discourse is broadened to ask "is there suffering here?" This latter question demands attention to patients' subjective experiences of suffering, but also to the web of relationships that envelop them. Without losing sight of the importance of patients' experiences, consideration of their relationships may elucidate the presence of suffering when the patients themselves are unable to provide the same clarity. In this essay, care ethics frames an examination of how suffering manifests in the loving and caring relationships that surround an infant with profound neurocognitive disabilities, changing those relationships and affecting the individuals within them. Exploring suffering through these relationships may offer clarity on the presence and content of suffering for infants with profound cognitive disabilities, in turn offering moral guidance for responding to suffering and supporting flourishing in this context.

Should Extremely Premature Babies Get Ventilators During the COVID-19 Crisis?

In a crisis, societal needs take precedence over a patient's best interests. Triage guidelines, however, differ on whether limited resources should focus on maximizing lives or life-years. Choosing between these two approaches has implications for neonatology. Neonatal units have ventilators, some adaptable for adults. This raises the question of whether, in crisis conditions, guidelines for treating extremely premature babies should be altered to free-up ventilators. Some adults who need ventilators will have a survival rate higher than some extremely premature babies. But surviving babies will likely live longer, maximizing life-years. Empiric evidence demonstrates that these babies can derive significant survival benefits from ventilation when compared to adults. When "triaging" or choosing between patients, justice demands fair guidelines. Premature babies do not deserve special consideration; they deserve equal consideration. Solidarity is crucial but must consider needs specific to patient populations and avoid biases against people with disabilities and extremely premature babies.

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.

Variable management strategies for NEC totalis: a national survey

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a serious disease linked to prematurity. A variant, NEC totalis, is associated with nearly 100% mortality. There is wide variation in counseling practices for NEC totalis. Our objectives are to determine what treatment options, if any, are offered to families, and which factors influence these decisions.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed to members of the AAP Sections on Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine and Pediatric Surgery. Data were analyzed utilizing chi-square tests and Spearman correlations, where applicable.

RESULTS

In the setting of NEC totalis, 90% of the 378 respondents viewed offering life-sustaining interventions (LSI) as ethically permissible and 87% felt that transfer to another center willing to provide LSI should be considered; however, only 43% reported offering LSI to families.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of NEC totalis remains challenging and significant practice variability persists. Most respondents do not offer ongoing medical/surgical management, despite believing it is an ethically permissible option.

Counseling parents at risk of delivery of an extremely premature infant: Differing strategies

BACKGROUND

It is not known how neonatologists address the affective and cognitive loads on parents deciding whether to resuscitate infants born extremely preterm. This study explores expert neonatologists' views on these decision-making processes and their own roles in counseling parents.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews asked internationally recognized experts to share their perspectives on perinatal consultations. Their responses were subjected to thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Eighteen of 22 invited experts participated. Approximately equal numbers reported employing a physician-driven approach, a parent-driven approach, and a combined approach during these consultations. Those who followed a physician-driven approach typically focused on conveying standard information about adverse outcomes. Those who followed a parent-driven approach typically focused on addressing parents' information requests, guiding their decision making, and providing affective support. Nearly all experts, in each group, endorsed addressing the child's quality of life, in terms of functionality, when discussing long-term outcomes. Although many believed that families adjusted to life with a disabled child, few discussed the topic during prenatal consultations. Most, in each group, reported trying to alleviate future "decisional regret" for parents whose premature infants subsequently became disabled. None spoke to parents about possible decisional regret after deciding to forgo resuscitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert neonatologists are deeply concerned that parents understand the decision facing them. However, they differ on what information they offer and how they balance parents' need for cognitive and affective support. They expressed more concern about parents' decisional regret should their child survive resuscitation, but have severe disability, than about decisional regret after foregoing resuscitation.

Provider Perspectives Regarding Resuscitation Decisions for Neonates and Other Vulnerable Patients

OBJECTIVES

To use structured surveys to assess the perspectives of pediatric residents and neonatal nurses on resuscitation decisions for vulnerable patients, including neonates.

STUDY DESIGN

Pediatric providers were surveyed using scenarios for 6 critically ill patients of different ages with outcomes explicitly described. Providers were asked (1) whether resuscitation was in each patient's best interest; (2) whether they would accept families' wishes for comfort care (no resuscitation); and (3) to rank patients in order of priority for resuscitation. In a structured interview, each participant explained how they evaluated patient interests and when applicable, why their answers differed for neonates. Interviews were audiotaped; transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis and mixed methods.

RESULTS

Eighty pediatric residents and neonatal nurses participated (response rate 74%). When making life and death decisions, participants considered (1) patient characteristics (96%), (2) personal experience/biases (85%), (3) family's wishes and desires (81%), (4) disease characteristics (74%), and (5) societal perspectives (36%). These factors were not in favor of sick neonates: of the participants, 85% reported having negative biases toward neonates and 60% did not read, misinterpreted, and/or distrusted neonatal outcome statistics. Additional factors used to justify comfort care for neonates included limited personhood and lack of relationships/attachment (73%); prioritization of family's best interest, and social acceptability of death (36%). When these preconceptions were discussed, 70% of respondents reported they would change their answers in favor of neonates.

CONCLUSIONS

Resuscitation decisions for neonates are based on many factors, such as considerations of personhood and family's interests (that are not traditional indicators of benefit), which may explain why decision making is different for the neonatal population.

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."

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.

Delivery room management of extremely preterm infants: the EPIPAGE-2 study

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the delivery room management of babies born between 22 and 26 weeks of completed gestational age and to identify the factors associated with the withholding or withdrawal of intensive care.

STUDY DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Our study population comprised 2145 births between 22 and 26 completed weeks enrolled in the EPIPAGE-2 study, a French cohort of very preterm infants born in 2011. The primary outcome measure was withholding or withdrawal of intensive care in the delivery room.

RESULTS

Among infants born alive at 22-23 weeks, intensive care was withheld or withdrawn for >90%. At 24 weeks, resuscitative measures were withheld or withdrawn for 38%, at 25 weeks for 8% and at 26 weeks for 3%. Other factors besides gestational age at birth associated with this withholding or withdrawal for infants born at 24-26 weeks were birth weight <600 g, emergency delivery (within 24 h of the mother's admission) and singleton pregnancy. Although rates of withholding or withdrawal of intensive care varied substantially between maternity units (from 0% to 100%), the variability was primarily explained by differences in distributions of gestational age at birth.

CONCLUSIONS

Although gestational age is only one factor predicting survival of preterm infants, practices in France appear to be based primarily on this factor, which thus has direct effects on the survival of extremely preterm infants. The ethical implications of basing life and death decisions only on gestational age before 25 weeks require further examination.

In what circumstances will a neonatologist decide a patient is not a resuscitation candidate?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the opinions of practising neonatologists regarding the ethical permissibility of unilateral Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) decisions in the neonatal intensive care unit.

STUDY DESIGN

An anonymous survey regarding the permissibility of unilateral DNAR orders for three clinical vignettes was sent to members of the American Academy of Pediatrics Section of Perinatal Medicine.

RESULTS

There were 490 out of a possible 3000 respondents (16%). A majority (76%) responded that a unilateral DNAR decision would be permissible in cases for which survival was felt to be impossible. A minority (25%) responded 'yes' when asked if a unilateral DNAR order would be permissible based solely on neurological prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of neonatologists believed unilateral DNAR decisions are ethically permissible if survival is felt to be impossible, but not permissible based solely on poor neurological prognosis. This has significant implications for clinical care.

Extremely premature birth and the choice of neonatal intensive care versus palliative comfort care: an 18-year single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

Review all live births 22 0/7 through 26 6/7 weeks gestation born 1996 through 2013 at our institution to describe the decision process and immediate outcomes of palliative comfort care (PCC) versus neonatal intensive care (NICU) and whether any significant family complaints or quality assurance concerns arose.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review, physician and ethicist interview process and database review focused upon our established periviability counseling guidelines that are directive of PCC at 22 weeks gestation and NICU at 26 weeks but supportive of informed family choice of either option at 23, 24 and 25 weeks.

RESULT

At 22 weeks--all 54 infants had PCC; at 23 weeks--29/78 (37%) chose NICU care, 6/29 (21%) infants survived; at 24 weeks--79/108 (73%) chose NICU care, 47/79 (59%) survived; at 25 weeks--147/153 (96%) chose NICU care, 115/147 (78%) survived; and at 26 weeks--all infants had NICU care, 176/203 (87%) survived. Over 18 years and 606 births, we identified only three significant concerns from families and/or physicians that required formal review.

CONCLUSION

Most pregnant women and families choose NICU care for their extremely premature infant, but if given the option via shared decision making, a significant proportion will choose PCC at gestational ages that some NICUs mandate resuscitation. We support a reasoned dialogue and bioethical framework that recognizes human values to be irreducibly diverse, sometimes conflicting, and ultimately incommensurable--value pluralism. Respectful shared decision making requires thoughtful and compassionate flexibility, nuanced and individualized suggestions for PCC or NICU and the reduction of hierarchical directives from physicians to families. We continue to advocate and rely upon informed family preference between 23 and 25 weeks gestation in our updated 2015 periviability guidelines.

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.