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.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Parental authority, patient's best interest and refusal of resuscitation at borderline gestational age

Abstract

Potential conflict exists when parents refuse a medical intervention for their child that the physician feels obligated to provide. For the anticipated delivery of a preterm newborn, this conflict might exist if the parents refuse resuscitation. At borderline viability, most neonatologists are likely to respect the parents' wishes. However, there will be some gestational age threshold above which the physician will feel compelled to resuscitate despite parental refusal, and will be ethically justified in doing so. The location of that threshold should be determined by the application of sound ethical reasoning, rather than relying on habit or arbitrary standards. That reasoning should include an honest assessment of the benefits and burdens to the child, short-term and long-term, of attempted resuscitation, made in light of relevant mortality and morbidity data. However, a rational analysis will also require consideration of whether the patient's best interest standard should be strictly applied, or whether the interests of others, such as family members, should also be taken into account.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

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

References

  1. Mercurio MR . Physicians' refusal to resuscitate at borderline gestational age. J Perinatol 2005; 25: 685–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cummings B, McKay K, Hussain N . Neonatologists' opinions regarding resuscitation of extremely premature infants in Connecticut and Rhode Island. Connecticut Med 2002; 66: 733–738.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jones HP, Karuri S, Cronin CM, Ohlsson A, Peliowski A, Synnes A et al. Actuarial survival of a large Canadian cohort of preterm infants. BMC Pediatr 2005; 5: 40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. MacDonald H, the Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Perinatal care at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics 2002; 110: 1024–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hack M, Taylor G, Drotar D, Schluchter M, Cartar L, Wilson-Costello D et al. Poor predictive validity of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development for cognitive function of extremely low birth weight children at school age. Pediatrics 2005; 116: 333–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Marlow N, Wolke D, Bracewell M, Samara M, for the EPICure Study Group. Neurologic and developmental disability at six years of age after extremely preterm birth. New Engl J Med 2005; 352: 9–19.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mikkola K, Ritari N, Tommiska V, Salokorpi T, Lehtonen L, Tammela O et al. Neurodevelopmental outcome at 5 years of age of a national cohort of extremely low birth weight infants who were born in 1886–1997. Pediatrics 2005; 116: 1391–1400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wood N, Marlow N, Costeloe K, Gibson A, Wilkinson A for the EPICure Study Group. Neurologic and developmental disability after extremely preterm birth. New Enlg J Med 2000; 343: 378–384.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Magriples U, Copel J . Obstetric management in the high risk patient. In: Burrow GN, Duffy TP, Copel J (eds). Medical Complications During Pregnancy, 6th edn. Elsevier Saunders: Philadelphia, 2004, pp 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tyson J, Younes N, Verter J, Wright L . Viability, morbidity, and resource use among newborns of 501- to 800-g birth weight. JAMA 276; 20: 1645–1661.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Beauchamp T, Childress J . Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press: New York, 1994 pp 120–188.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schloendorf V . Society of New York hospital, 1914, as quoted. In McCullough LB, Chervenak FA (eds). Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Oxford University Press: New York, 1994, p 50.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Paris JJ, Schreiber MD . Parental discretion in refusal of treatment for newborns: a real but limited right. Clin Perinatol 1996; 23: 573–581.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Engelhardt HT . Ethical issues in aiding the death of young children. In Kohl M (ed). Beneficent Euthanasia. Prometheus Books: Buffalo, 1975, p 185.

    Google Scholar 

  16. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn. The initiation or withdrawal of treatment for high-risk newborns. Pediatrics 1995; 96: 362–363.

  17. Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary. F.A. Davis: Philadelphia, 2001 p 2062.

  18. Buchanan AE, Brock DW . Deciding for Others. Cambridge University Press: New York, 1990, pp 112–133.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. American Academy of Pediatrics. Guidelines on forgoing life-sustaining medical treatment. Pediatrics 1994; 93: 532–536.

  20. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, 1983 p 218.

  21. Harwig J . What about the family? In: Harwig J (ed). Is there a Duty to Die? and Other Essays in Medical Ethics. Routledge: New York, 2000, pp 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Carl Bose for suggesting the article, to Rich Ehrenkranz for the Yale data, and to Steve Peterec for critical review and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M R Mercurio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mercurio, M. Parental authority, patient's best interest and refusal of resuscitation at borderline gestational age. J Perinatol 26, 452–457 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211547

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211547

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links