Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:17:35.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Paradigm for Making Difficult Choices in the Intensive Care Nursery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

William E. Benitz
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California

Extract

In the 10 years since the birth of “Baby Doe,” the decisions confronted daily by neonatologists and parents of sick or premature infants have been the focus of a great deal of attention. Issues raised by these decisions have been vigorously debated and discussed in the popular media in political and governmental forums, and in the professional literatures of a variety of academic disciplines. These discourses have illuminated a number of moral and ethical principles that may govern these decisions and have contributed to the development of regulatory and procedural constraints upon this process, including requirements for establishment of infant care review committees at all hospitals that provide neonatal intensive care services. However, the philosophical concepts espoused by theoreticians, although often helpful as abstractions, are rarely invoked at the bedside as decisions are sought for individual patients. No clear consensus has emerged on how these ideas should be incorporated into clinical practice or on the role of mandated ethics committees or discretionary ethics consultants. Consequently, there are wide disparities in decision-making processes both within and among institutions. Failures of these systems to protect neonatal patients or their families remain distressingly common and have attracted considerable attention in the lay press. Although there can be no universal decision tree that can dictate the course of this complex process in all cases, a clearly articulated operative paradigm that defines essential features of an effective and equitable decision-making process is essential to identify the causes of failures and conflicts that arise when the process is dysfunctional and to prevent such problems by providing a framework for training practitioners to deal with these issues.

Type
Special Section: From Cells to Selves: Ethics at the Beginning of Life
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Loewy, EH.Suffering as a consideration in ethical decision making. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1992;1:135–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Hippocrates, . The Aphorisms of Hippocrates. Birmingham, Alabama: Gryphon Editions, 1982.Google Scholar

3. Garfunkel, JM. Priorities for the use of finite resources: now may be the time to choose, journal of Pediatrics 1989;115:410–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Paris, JJ, Crone, RK, Reardon, F. Physicians' refusal of requested treatment — the case of Baby L. New England Journal of Medicine 1990;322:1012–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Miles, SH. Informed demand for “non-beneficial” medical treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 1991;325:512–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Jellinek, MS, Catlin, EA, Todres, ID, Cassem, EH. Facing tragic decisions with parents in the neonatal intensive care unit: clinical perspectives. Pediatrics 1992;89:119–22.Google ScholarPubMed

7. Paris, JJ, Crone, RK, Reardon, F. Physicians' refusal of requested treatment — the case of Baby L. New England Journal of Medicine 1990;322:1012–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Miles, SH. Informed demand for “non-beneficial” medical treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 1991;325:512–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Troug, RD, Brett, AS, Frader, J. The problem with futility. New England Journal of Medicine 1992;326:1560–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Paris, JJ, Crone, RK, Reardon, F. Physicians' refusal of requested treatment — the case of Baby L. New England Journal of Medicine 1990;322:1012–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Miles, SH. Informed demand for “non-beneficial” medical treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 1991;325:512–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. Stevenson, DK, Ariagno, RL, Kutner, JS, Raffin, TA, Young, EWD. The ‘Baby Doe” rule. Journal of American Medical Association 1986;255:1909–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar