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:

Nobody likes premies: the relative value of patients’ lives

Journal of Perinatology volume 28, pages 821–826 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study was to examine whether patient selection or triage requires placing a relative value on human lives and whether the values placed on these lives are consistent with current ethical theories.

Study Design:

An anonymous questionnaire was administered to groups of physicians and students in Montreal. It presented eight currently incompetent patients with potential neurological sequelae requiring emergency care. Predicted outcomes were explicitly described. Four patients had a predicted 50% survival and a 50% chance of impairment; they were a preterm and a term neonate, a 2-month-old and a 50-year-old. Two already disabled patients, a 7-year-old and an 80-year-old, had 50% predicted survival. A 14-year-old and a 35-year-old had 5% survival, but differing impairment.Respondents were asked if they would resuscitate and in what order they would resuscitate if all needed intervention simultaneously.

Result:

Eighty-five percent response rate, n=524. The proportion stating they would always resuscitate was smallest for the 80-year-old (18% P<0.001 compared to other patients), then the preterm (35%, P<0.001), then the term and the 50-year-old (53 and 58%, P<0.01). The 2-month-old and the 7-year-old would be resuscitated most frequently (74 and 77%, P<0.01), followed by the patients with 5% survival (64 and 68%, P<0.001). The median order of triage was first the 2-month-old, followed by the 7-year-old, the 14-year-old, the term newborn, the 50-year-old, the 35-year-old, the premature newborn and the 80-year-old.

Conclusion:

Order of resuscitation was not closely related to the predicted survival, impairment or potential life years gained. Age appeared to have a strong influence, with children's lives being valued more than the adults’. This tendency was reversed for the newborn infants who were undervalued compared with older children, and most particularly for the premature. The value placed on the life of newborns, in particular the premature, is less than that expected by any objective medical data and was not consistent with any ethical theory that we tested.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Waring DR . Tragic decisions. In: Medical Benefit and the Human Lottery: An Egalitarian Approach to Patient Selection. Springer: Toronto, Canada, 2004, pp 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kilner JF . Who lives? Who dies? Ethical Criteria in Patient Selection. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, 1990 198–199.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Evans RW . Health care technology and the inevitability of resource allocation decisions, part II. JAMA 1983; 249: 2209.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Daniels N . Four unsolved rationing problems: a challenge. Hastings Cent Rep 1994; 24: 27–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Childress JF . Who Shall Live When not all Can Live? Practical Reasoning in Bioethics. Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, 1997 69–180.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harris J . QALYfying the value of life. Med Ethics 1987; 13: 117–123.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Singer P, McKie J, Kuhse H, Richardson J . Double jeopardy, the equal value of lives and the veil of ignorance: a rejoinder to Harris. J Med Ethics 1996; 22: 205.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Veatch RM . The ethics of resource allocation in critical care. Crit Care Clinics 1986; 2: 73–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Childress JF . Triage in the neonatal intensive care unit. In: Practical Reasoning in Bioethics. Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, 1997, pp 193–213.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Waring DR . A threshold level of medical benefit. In: Medical Benefit and the Human Lottery: An Egalitarian Approach to Patient Selection. Springer: Toronto, Canada, 2004 pp 133–147.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Rescher N . The allocation of exotic medical lifesaving therapy. In: Munson R (ed). Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medical Ethics. Wadsworth Publishing Co.: New York, NY, 1996, pp 578–581.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Waring DR . Patient selection and medical utility. In: Medical Benefit and the Human Lottery: An Egalitarian Approach to Patient Selection. Springer: Toronto, Canada, 2004, pp 13–27.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Janvier A, Leblanc I, Barrington K . The best-interest standard is not applied for neonatal resuscitation decisions. Pediatrics 2008; 121: 963–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Harris J . More and better justice. In: Bell JM, Mendes S (eds). Philosophy and Medical Welfare, Royal Institute of Philosophy Lecture Series 23: Supplement to Philosophy 1988. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 1988, p 83.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Harris J . Justice and equal opportunities in health care. Bioethics 1999; 13: 399–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Waring DR . Waiting lists and lotteries in practice. In: Medical Benefit and the Human Lottery: An Egalitarian Approach to Patient Selection. Springer: Toronto, Canada, 2004, pp 153–167.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Doyle LW, the Victorian Infant Collaborative Study Group. Evaluation of neonatal intensive care for extremely low birth weight infants in Victoria over two decades: II. Efficiency. Pediatrics 2004; 113 (3): 510–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Daniels N . Am I My Parents’ Keeper? An Essay on Justice between the Young and the Old. Oxford University Press: Oxford, England, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Veatch RM . Justice and Valuing Lives. In Life Span: Values and Life-Extending Technologies. Harper and Row: New York, NY, 1979 218.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Waring DR . The comparative value of lives. In: Medical Benefit and the Human Lottery: An Egalitarian Approach to Patient Selection. Springer: Toronto, Canada, 2004, pp 33–49.

    Google Scholar 

  21. McKneally MF, Dickens BM, Meslin EM, Singer PA . Bioethics for clinicians: 13 resource allocation. CMAJ 1997; 157: 163–167.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. The fetus as a person. CMAJ 1990; 143: 1156 (no authors listed).

  23. Burkhart J . The social construction of personhood. Soc Thought 1989; 15: 2–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Singer P . Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 1979 137.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Engelhardt HT . Ethical issues in aiding the death of young children. In: Kohl M (ed). Beneficent Euthanasia. Prometheus: Buffalo, NY, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Tooley M . Personhood. In: Singer P, Kuhse H (eds). A Companion to Bioethics. Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, England, 1998, pp 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Engelhardt HT . The many faces of autonomy. Health Care Anal 2001; 9: 283–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Médecine sous influence. Moreno LB Producer, National Film Board of Canada. 2004.

  29. Miracle Baby grows up. Grange R Producer, BBC Panorama series (Transcript accessed on arpil3 2007 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcripts/miraclebabygrowsup.txt).

  30. Waring D . Fair Innings and need over lifetime. In: Medical Benefit and the Human Lottery: An Egalitarian Approach to Patient Selection. Springer: Toronto, Canada, 2004, pp 89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Janvier A, Bauer KL, Lantos JD . Are newborns morally different from older children? Theor Med Bioeth 2007; 28 (5): 413–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zweibel NR, Cassel CK, Karrison T . Public attitudes about the use of chronological age as a criterion for allocating health care resources. Gerontologist 1993; 33: 74–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Callahan D . Setting Limits: Medical Goals for an Aging Society. Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, 1987 17.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jahnigen DW, Binstock RH . Economic and clinical realities: heath care for elderly people. In: Binstock RH, Post SG (eds). Too Old for Health Care? Controversies in Medicine, Law, Economics, and Ethics. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, 1991, p 17.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kamm F . Précis of morality, mortality, vol. 1: death and whom to save from it. Philos Phenomenal Res 1998; 58: 943–944.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Childress JF . Ensuring care, respect, and fairness for the elderly. Hastings Cent Rep 1984; 14: 28–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Griffin J . Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement, and Moral Importance. Clarendon Press: Oxford England, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Waring DR . An egalitarian ethos. In: Medical Benefit and the Human Lottery: An Egalitarian Approach to Patient Selection. Springer: Toronto, Canada, 2004, pp 115–131.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Danish council of ethics, Extreme prematurity, ethical aspects. 1995.

  40. Swiss Society of Neonatologists, Guidelines. Recommendation for the care of infants born at the limit of viability (GA 22–26 weeks) (accessed April 3, 2007 at http://www.neonet.ch/assets/doc/Infants_born_at_the_limit_of_viability_-_english_final.pdf).

  41. Salle B, Sureau C . Le préma de moins de 28 SA, sa réanimation et son avenir. Rapport de l’académie de médecine, 2006, saisie dans sa séance du mardi 20 juin 2006 (accessed April 3 2007 at http://www.academie-medecine.fr/upload/base//rapports_289_fichier_lie.rtf).

  42. Nuffield council on bioethics. Critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine: ethical issues, England 2006 (Accessed April 3 2007 at http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/prolonginglife/publication_406.html).

  43. Committee of Fetus and Newborn of the Canadian Pediatric Society, and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Management of the woman with threatened birth of an infant of extremely low gestational age. Can Med Assoc J 1994; 151 (5): 547–551.

  44. Sherlock RL, Anderson PJ, Doyle LW . Neurodevelopmental sequelae of intraventricular haemorrhage at 8 years of age in a regional cohort of ELBW/very preterm infants. Early Hum Dev 2005; 81: 909–916.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Serenius F, Ewald U, Farooqi A, Holmgren PA, Hakansson S, Sedin G . Short-term outcome after active perinatal management at 23–25 weeks of gestation. A study from two Swedish tertiary care centers. Part 2: infant survival. Acta Paediatr 2004; 93: 1081–1089.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Lefebvre F, Mazurier E, Tessier R . Cognitive and educational outcomes in early adulthood for infants weighing 1000 grams or less at birth. Acta Paediatr 2005; 94: 733–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lorenz JM, Wooliever DE, Jetton JR, Paneth N . A quantitative review of mortality and developmental disability in extremely premature newborn. Arch Pediatr Adeolesc Med 1998; 152: 425–435.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Lorenz JM . The outcome of extreme prematurity. Semin Perinatol 2001; 25: 348–359.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Hintz SR, Kendrick DE, Vohr BR, Poole WK, Higgins RD, for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Changes in Neurodevelopmental Outcomes at 18 to 22 Months’ Corrected Age Among Infants of Less Than 25 Weeks’ Gestational Age Born in 1993–1999. Pediatrics 2005; 115: 1645–1651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Canadian Neonatal Network 2005 annual report (Accessed April 2, 2007 at http://www.canadianneonatalnetwork.org/Doc/2005.pdf).

  51. American Academy of Medicine, code of medical ethics (Accessed April 2, 2007 at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2498.html).

  52. Canadian Medical Association. Code of Ethics. CMAJ 1996; 155: 1776A–1776B.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    A Janvier & K J Barrington

  2. Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    I Leblanc

Authors
  1. A Janvier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. I Leblanc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K J Barrington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K J Barrington.

Additional information

Disclaimer

There are no conflicts of interest to report.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Janvier, A., Leblanc, I. & Barrington, K. Nobody likes premies: the relative value of patients’ lives. J Perinatol 28, 821–826 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2008.103

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2008.103

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links