Treatment decisions for newborns at the threshold of viability: an ethical dilemma

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.

Professional ethics: the case of neonatology

Neonatal professionals encounter many ethical challenges especially when it comes to interventions at the limit of viability (weeks 22-25 of gestation). At times, these challenges make the moral dilemmas in neonatology tragic and they require a particular set of intellectual and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues of episteme and phronesis, together with moral virtues of courage, compassion, keeping fidelity to trust, and integrity were highlighted as key virtues of the neonatal professional. Recognition of the role of ethics requires a recognition that answering the obvious question (what shall we do?) does not always suffice. Acknowledging the tragic question (is any of the alternatives open to us free from serious moral wrongdoing) and recognizing the ethical dilemmas, where the lines between right and wrong are blurred, leads to actions taken towards establishing ethics frameworks to support decision-making. In neonatology units, such organizational support can help in allowing the team members to recognize the ethical dilemmas, avoid moral distress, and improve team cohesion and the quality of care provided. Only when the organizational structure allows ethical dilemmas to be recognized, adequate decisions can be made.

Nursery care of the newborn with malformation syndrome

Congenital malformations are not so rare, and represent a relevant challenge to health care providers. We delineate a methodology for the clinical approach to the malformed newborn, that takes into account the needs of the patient as single person and as part of a familiar and social context. We consider first the medical problem that the neonatologists face in the nursery and neonatal intensive care unit regarding clinical assistance, diagnosis, parent counselling and hospital discharge. Then we focus on the periodic follow-up, and the role of the primary care physician and the specialist in the assistance of this patients.

Ethical issues for parents of extremely premature infants

Evidence suggests that NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) parents with an baby born at the threshold of viability do not always receive sufficient counselling during an emergency admission and as a consequence, are not well-informed to accept withdrawal of treatment or quality of life decisions. As prospective parents are not educated earlier in pregnancy about extreme premature delivery, crucial information and counselling explaining neonatal issues is only offered to labouring women during their emergency admission. As a result, most have difficulty understanding the risks and benefits of baby's treatment and therefore rely heavily on the perinatal physician to take responsibility for the initial treatment. However, this lack of understanding often leaves parents disadvantaged, as many are left unprepared to participate objectively in quality of life decisions. According to recent research, morbidity figures remain relatively high with one in five survivors at risk of a long-term disability. This shows that some parents will still be confronted by ethical decision of whether or not to continue treatment, and this may not be apparent until days after treatment has been established. As recent research has shown, parents do, in fact, want increased involvement in the decision-making process regarding their child's treatment. Therefore, it has been argued, that parents should be provided with information earlier in pregnancy to familiarise themselves with quality of life issues which they may encounter as the NICU parents of an extremely premature infant.

Attitudes of Canadian neonatologists in delivery room resuscitation of newborns at threshold of viability

OBJECTIVE

There is great debate regarding the extent of intensive care interventions for extremely premature newborns. In this report, we describe Canadian neonatologists' attitudes towards delivery room resuscitation decisions in neonates at the threshold of viability.

METHODS

We interviewed neonatologists (N = 121) practising in Canadian tertiary care neonatal units between June 2004 and April 2005, and asked whether they would support a parental request not to initiate resuscitation for newborns of 23 to 26 weeks' gestation. Bivariate analyses were performed to identify sociodemographic or cultural factors that might affect resuscitation decisions.

RESULTS

Most Canadian neonatologists would support a parental request not to initiate resuscitation of an infant at 23 and 24 weeks' gestation (98% and 80%, respectively). However, we observed heterogeneity across the country in attitudes primarily at 25 weeks, but also at 24 weeks' gestation. At 24 weeks' gestation, decisions also appear to be significantly related to personal experience with a disabled close friend or relative. For newborns of 25 weeks' gestation, neonatologists are divided: a majority (76%) would strongly advocate resuscitation and/or resuscitate a "viable" fetus against parental wishes, and a minority (24%) would agree not to initiate treatment. At 26 weeks' gestation, more than 97% would not support a request not to initiate resuscitation.

CONCLUSION

Attitudes of Canadian neonatologists towards resuscitation of newborns at the threshold of viability primarily differ at 25 weeks and to a lesser extent at 24 weeks of gestation. Our findings highlight important nuances in relation to existing national guidelines.

Perinatal care at the borderlines of viability: a consensus statement based on a NSW and ACT consensus workshop

Perinatal care at the borderlines of viability demands a delicate balance between parents' wishes and autonomy, biological feasibility, clinicians' responsibilities and expectations, and the prospects of an acceptable long-term outcome - coupled with a tolerable margin of uncertainty. A multi-professional workshop with consumer involvement was held in February 2005 to agree on management of this issue in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. Participants discussed and formulated consensus statements after an extensive consultation process. Consensus was reached that the "grey zone" is between 23 weeks' and 25 weeks and 6 days' gestation. While there is an increasing obligation to treat with increasing length of gestation, it is acceptable medical practice not to initiate intensive care during this period if parents so wish, after appropriate counselling. Poor condition at birth and the presence of serious congenital anomalies have an important influence on any decision not to initiate intensive care within the grey zone. Women at high risk of imminent delivery within the grey zone should receive appropriate and skilled counselling with the most relevant up-to-date outcome information. Management plans can thus be made before birth. Information should be simple, factual and consistent. The consensus statements developed will provide a framework to assist parents and clinicians in communication, decision making and managing these challenging situations.

Restriction of ongoing intensive care in neonates: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this work was to record the current practice of restricting ongoing intensive care in severely ill newborns.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study over a 30-month period of consecutive newborns for whom restriction of ongoing intensive care was taken into consideration, discussed, or decided on. A standardized form recorded patients' medical condition, the type of restriction decided on, parents' wishes, and their information level. The research was conducted in a neonatal unit of a level III university children's hospital, with no interventions.

RESULTS

Forty patients were enrolled, 25 were preterm, 21 had either a genetic defect or an inborn malformation. Restriction of ongoing intensive care was decided on for 32 patients with a great variety of specified recommendations. Thirty-six patients died during the observation period. In general, parents were well informed; however, their wishes concerning restriction of ongoing intensive care were unknown in approximately 25% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision-making process for restriction of ongoing intensive care is well established, but the role of parents needs to be defined.

Prenatal consultation practices at the border of viability: a regional survey

OBJECTIVE

We undertook a survey of all practicing neonatologists in New England to determine their attitudes and practices regarding prenatal consultations for infants at the border of viability.

METHODS

A self-administered anonymous survey, mailed to every practicing neonatologist in the 6 Northeast states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, explored respondent attitudes and practices with respect to a hypothetical clinical scenario of a prenatal consultation for an infant at the border of viability.

RESULTS

Our final sample included 149 surveys from 175 eligible neonatologists, giving a response rate of 85%. Seventy-seven percent of respondents indicated that they thought neonatologists and parents should make the decision jointly to withhold resuscitation. Only 40% indicated that the decision actually is made by both parties. A majority of neonatologists (58%) saw their primary role during the prenatal consultation as providing factual information to the parents. Far fewer (27%) thought that their main role was to assist the parents in weighing the risks and benefits of various management options. A majority of respondents indicated that parental understanding of the mother's current medical situation (96%), desired parental role (77%), and parental prior experience with premature or handicapped children (64%) were frequently or always discussed. However, far fewer respondents reported frequently or always asking about parental interpretations of a "good quality of life" (42%), parental prior experiences with death or dying (30%), and parental religious or spiritual beliefs (25%). Short-term outcomes and complications such as the need for surfactant/respiratory distress syndrome (89%) and the risk of intraventricular hemorrhage (81%) were discussed more extensively than long-term outcomes such as motor delays or cerebral palsy (68%), cognitive delays or learning disabilities (63%), and chronic lung disease (61%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed 2 characteristics that were significant predictors of shared decision-making for the final decision regarding resuscitation in the delivery room for extremely premature infants, ie, believing that the main role of the neonatologist during prenatal consultations is to help parents weigh the risks and benefits of each resuscitation option (odds ratio: 4.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.6-10.9) and having >10 years of clinical experience (odds ratio: 3.6; 95% confidence interval: 1.5-8.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, our results showed that neonatologists are quite consistent in discussing clinical issues but quite varied in discussing social and ethical issues. If neonatologists are to perform complete prenatal consultations for infants at the border of viability as described by the latest American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, then they will be expected to address quality-of-life values more robustly, to explain long-term outcomes, and to incorporate parental preferences during their conversations. Potential barriers to shared decision-making have yet to be outlined.

Improved survival rates with increased neurodevelopmental disability for extremely low birth weight infants in the 1990s

BACKGROUND

Advances in perinatal care have resulted in increased survival rates for extremely low birth weight children. We sought to examine the relative changes in rates of survival and neurodevelopmental impairment at 20 months of corrected age among 500- to 999-g birth weight infants born at our perinatal center during 2 periods, before and after the introduction of surfactant therapy in 1990.

METHODS

Four hundred ninety-six infants with birth weights of 500 to 999 g were born at our perinatal center during period I (1982-1989) (mean body weight: 762 g; mean gestational age: 25.8 weeks) and 682 during period II (1990-1998) (mean body weight: 756 g; mean gestational age: 25.5 weeks). Rates of death and survival with and without neurodevelopmental impairment at 20 months of corrected age for the 2 periods were compared with logistic regression analyses, with adjustment for gestational age.

RESULTS

Survival rates increased from 49% during period I to 67% during period II. Neonatal morbidity rates also increased during period II, including rates of sepsis (from 37% to 51%), periventricular leukomalacia (from 2% to 7%), and chronic lung disease, defined as oxygen dependence at 36 weeks of corrected age (from 32% to 43%). Rates of severe cranial ultrasound abnormalities were similar (22% vs 22%). Among children monitored, the rate of neurologic abnormalities, including cerebral palsy, increased from 16% during period I to 25% during period II and the rate of deafness increased from 3% to 7%. The overall rate of neurodevelopmental impairment (major neurosensory abnormality and/or Bayley Mental Developmental Index score of <70) increased from 26% to 36%. Compared with period I, in period II there were decreased rates of death (odds ratio [OR]: 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.2-0.4) and increased rates of survival with impairment (OR: 2.3; 95% CI: 1.7-3.3) but also increased rates of survival without impairment (OR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.3-2.2). Compared with period I, for every 100 infants with birth weights of 500 to 999 g born in period II, 18 additional infants survived, of whom 7 were unimpaired and 11 were impaired.

CONCLUSIONS

The improved survival rates in the 1990s occurred with an increased risk of significant neurodevelopmental impairment. Prospective parents of extremely low birth weight infants should be advised of this substantial risk, to facilitate decision-making in the delivery room.

Delivery room decision-making at the threshold of viability

OBJECTIVES

To assess attitudes of neonatologists toward parental wishes in delivery room resuscitation decisions at the threshold of viability.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of the 175 practicing level II/III neonatologists in six New England states.

RESULTS

Response rate was 85% (149/175). At 24 1/7-6/7 weeks' gestation, 41% of neonatologists considered treatment clearly beneficial, and at 25 1/7-6/7 weeks' gestation, 84% considered treatment clearly beneficial. When respondents consider treatment clearly beneficial, 91% reported that they would resuscitate in the delivery room despite parental requests to withhold. At or below 23 0/7 weeks' gestation, 93% of neonatologists considered treatment futile. Thirty-three percent reported that they would provide what they consider futile treatment at parental request. When respondents consider treatment to be of uncertain benefit, all reported that they would resuscitate when parents request it, 98% reported that they would resuscitate when parents are unsure, and 76% reported that they would follow parental requests to withhold.

CONCLUSIONS

Variation in neonatologists' beliefs about the gestational age bounds of clearly beneficial treatment and attitudes toward parental wishes in the context of uncertainty is likely to impact the manner in which they discuss options with parents before delivery. This supports the importance of transparency in neonatal decision-making.