Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Withdrawal of life sustaining treatment in children in the first year of life

Journal of Perinatology volume 28, pages 641–645 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective:

Since the enactment of the Texas Advance Directives Act of 1999, the Memorial Hermann Hospital Medical Appropriateness Review Committee (MARC) MARC reviewed six cases of children in the first year of life, three from the Neonatal ICU and three from the Pediatric ICU. We aimed to describe the characteristics of these patients and the role of the MARC in this process.

Study Design:

A single reviewer retrospectively reviewed the cases for patient diagnoses, demographics, related ethical issues and the actions of the MARC.

Result:

Each of the six patients required life-sustaining therapy, and each patient had a Do Not Resuscitate order on the chart. The MARC determined that it would be appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining support in four of the cases and to continue support in two of the cases. Five of the patients died in the hospital before discharge: two after discontinuation of support, one during the 10-day waiting period, and two died on full support after the Committee determined that continued treatment was medically appropriate. One patient was transferred to another hospital during the 10-day waiting period.

Conclusion:

These cases document the application of the TADA/MARC process in infants, even in circumstances where care was withdrawn without concurrence of the family. We found the MARC process to demand a very high degree of certainty of diagnosis and prognosis to determine continuation of care to be inappropriate. We conclude that the MARC promoted communication and provided additional protections to patients, families, physicians and staff.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jecker NS, Schneiderman LJ . Fultility and rationing. Am J Med 1992; 92: 189–196.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Murphy DJ . Do-not-resuscitate orders. Time for reappraisal in long-term care institutions. JAMA 1988; 260 (14): 2098–2101.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Medical Futility in End-of-life Care. Report of the council on ethical and judicial affairs. JAMA 1999; 281 (10): 937–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Truog RD, Brett AS . The problem with futility. NEJM 1992; 326 (23): 1560–1564.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lantos JD, Singer PA, Walker RM, Gramelspacher GP, Shapiro GR, Sanchez-Gonzalez MA et al. The illusion of futility in clinical practice. Am J Med 1989; 87: 81–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schneiderman LJ, Jecker NS, Jonsen AR . Medical futility: it's meaning and ethical implications. Ann Intern Med 1990; 112 (12): 949–954.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Helft PR, Seigler M, Lantos JD . The rise and fall of the futility movement. N Engl J Med 2000; 343 (4): 293–296.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fine RL, Mayo TW . Resolution of futility by due process: early experience with the Texas advance directives act. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138 (9): 743–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Halevy A, Brody BA . A multi-institutional collaborative policy on medical futility. JAMA 1996; 276 (7): 571–574.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Texas health and safety code §166.046. 1999.

  11. Avery GB . Futility considerations in the neonatal intensive care unit. Semin Perinatol 1998; 22 (3): 216–222.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tyson J . Evidence-based ethics and the care of premature infants. Future Child 1995; 5 (1): 197–213.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Stevenson DK, Araigno RL, Kutner JS, Raffin TA, Young EWD . The baby doe rule. JAMA 1986; 255 (14): 1909–1912.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Angell M . The baby doe rules. NEJM 1986; 314 (10): 642–644.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Truog RD . Tackling medical futility in Texas. New Engl J Med 2007; 357 (1): 1–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kopelman LM . The best-interests standard as threshold, ideal, and standard of reasonableness. J Med Philosophy 1997; 22: 271–289.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kopelman LM . Rejecting the baby doe rules and defending a ‘negative’ analysis of the best interests standard. J Med Philosophy 2005; 30: 331–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fine RL, Whitfield JM, Carr BL, Mayo TW . Medical futility in the neonatal intensive care unit: hope for a resolution. Pediatrics 2005; 116 (5): 1219–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Department of health and human services, 45 CFR.F.R. part 1340.15. 1985.

  20. Duff RS, Campbell AGM . Moral and ethical dilemmas in the special-care nursery. New Engl J Med 1973; 289 (17): 890–894.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Private Practice, Houston, TX, USA

    E B Eason

  2. Division Director of Pulmonary and Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas–Houston Medical School, Houston, TX, USA

    R J Castriotta

  3. University of Texas–Houston Medical School, Houston, TX, USA

    V Gremillion

  4. Department of Pediatrics, 982165 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA

    J W Sparks

Authors
  1. E B Eason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R J Castriotta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V Gremillion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J W Sparks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J W Sparks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eason, E., Castriotta, R., Gremillion, V. et al. Withdrawal of life sustaining treatment in children in the first year of life. J Perinatol 28, 641–645 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2008.58

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2008.58

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links