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.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Dispute between physicians and family on surgical treatment for an infant with ultra short gut syndrome: the perspective of an Ethics Committee

Journal of Perinatology volume 38, pages 781–784 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Medical treatments exist on a continuum from experimental procedures to those that are of proven efficacy and well within the standard of care [1]. The ethical aspects for use of non-established medical treatments differ significantly from those that apply in treatments of proven efficacy [2]. Although imposing heroic suffering on oneself in the hope of advancement of science is ethically acceptable, the same does not hold for imposing suffering on others [3]. In particular there are limits to which children may be subjected to unproven medications or procedures [4].

The insistence on increased scrutiny by the physician on behalf of the patient undergoing unproven treatment highlights the continuing significance of the Nuremberg Code for medical practice [5]. The Code provides norms for undertaking a proposed treatment regimen. First and foremost, the physician must obtain the free, voluntary consent of the patient—or in the case of a minor—of the parent before utilizing a proposed treatment.

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

References

  1. Jones D, Grady C, Lederer S. “Ethics and clinical research”—the 50th anniversary of Beecher’s bombshell. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:2393–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Emanuel E, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283:2701–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jonas H Philosophical reflections on experimenting with human subjects. In Jonas H ed. Philosophical essays. Chicago Press 1980;105–31.

  4. Caplan A, McBride, Folkers K. Charlie Gard and the limits of parental authority. Hastings Cent Rep. 2017;5:15–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shuster E. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg Code. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:1436–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Moore F. The desperate case: CARE (cost, applicability, research, ethics). JAMA. 1989;26:1483–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Modi BP, Langer M, Ching YA, Valim C, Waterford SD, Iglesias J, et al. Improved survival in a multidisciplinary short bowel syndrome program. Pediatr Surg. 2008;43:20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fallon EM, Mitchell PD, Nehra D, Potemkin AK, O’Loughlin AA, Gura KM, Puder M. Neonates with short bowel syndrome: an optimistic future for parental nutrition independence. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:663–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Squires RH, Duggan C, Teitelbaum DH, Wales PW, Balint J, Venick R, et al. Natural history of pediatric intestinal failure: initial report from the Pediatric Intestinal Failure Consortium. J Pediatr. 2012;161:723–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Khan F, Squires R, Litman H, Balint J, Carter BA, Fisher JG, et al. Predictors of enteral autonomy in children with intestinal failure: a multicenter cohort study. J Pediatr. 2015;167:29–34.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Batra A, Keys SC, Johnson MJ, Wheeler RA, Beattie RM. Epidemiology, management and outcome of ultrashort bowel syndrome in infancy. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2017;102:F551–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nandivada P, Fell GL, Gura KM, Puder M. Lipid emulsions in the treatment and prevention of parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease in infants and children. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;103:629S–634S.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Diamanti A, Conforti A, Panetta F, Torre G, Candusso M, Bagolan P, et al. Long-term outcome of home parenteral nutrition in patients with ultrashort bowel syndrome. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2014;58:438–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hughes A, Evans V, Forbes-Penfold D, Koeglmeier J, Hill S. Burden of care at night when living with a child on parenteral nutrition at home. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2015;10:e180.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tyson J, Younes N, Verter J, Wright LL. Viability, morbidity, and resource use among newborns of 501-800 g birth weight. JAMA. 1996;276:1645–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Paris J, Bell A. Guarantee my child will be “normal” or stop all treatment. J Perinatol. 1993;13:469–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn, Nonintervention or withdrawal of intensive care for high-risk newborns. Pediatrics 2007;119:401–3.

  18. McCormick R. To save or let die: the dilemma of modern medicine. JAMA. 1974;229:172–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lynn J, DeGraiza D. An outcomes model of medical decision making. Theor Med Bioeth. 1991;12:325–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Silverman W. Medical decisions: an appeal for reasonableness. Pediatrics. 1996;98:1182–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kruser J, Pecanac K, Brasel K, Cooper Z, Steffens NM, McKneally MF, et al. And I think we an “fix it”: mental models used in high-risk surgical decision making. Ann Surg. 2015;261:678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kopleman L, Irons T, Kopleman A. Neonatologists judge the Baby Doe regulations. N Eng J Med. 1988;318:677–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

  24. Pope T. The best interest standard: both guide and limit to medical decision making on behalf of incapacitated patients. J Clin Ethics. 2011;22:134–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Paris J, Ahluwalia J, Cummings BM, Moreland MP, Wilkinson DJ. The Charlies Gard case: British and American approaches to court resolution of disputes over medical decisions. J Perinatol. 2017;37:1268–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Paris J, Schreiber M. Parental discretion in refusal of treatment for newborns. Clin Perinatol. 1996;23:573–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cranford R, Doudera E. Institutional Ethics Committees and Health Care Decision Making. New Orleans: Health Administration Press, 1984.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Brian M. Cummings

  2. Department of Bioethics, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA

    John J. Paris

  3. Stanford Center for Bioethics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

    Jason N. Batten

  4. Villanova University School of Law, Villanova, PA, 19085, USA

    Michael P. Moreland

Authors
  1. Brian M. Cummings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John J. Paris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jason N. Batten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael P. Moreland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian M. Cummings.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cummings, B.M., Paris, J.J., Batten, J.N. et al. Dispute between physicians and family on surgical treatment for an infant with ultra short gut syndrome: the perspective of an Ethics Committee. J Perinatol 38, 781–784 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-018-0162-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41372-018-0162-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links