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:

Understanding the role of religious views in the discussion about resuscitation at the threshold of viability

Journal of Perinatology volume 36, pages 694–698 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Neonatologists and neonatal care providers frequently engage with families confronting difficult decisions. A common discussion point with parents anticipating delivery of a fetus at the ‘threshold of viability,’ between 22 and 25 weeks’ gestation, is the expected outcome, including chances for survival and the likelihood of disability-free survival (or conversely, the risk of moderate to severe/profound disability). Religious and cultural beliefs and values often exert a significant influence on both parental and health-care professionals’ preferences, and goals for care. It is therefore important for clinicians to have a basic understanding of the varied theological teachings related to fetal viability from the perspective of three prominent religions in the United States: Judaism, Islam and Catholicism.

While there are differences among these faiths about the concept of viability, there are also differences within religious denominations concerning the moral status of the fetus, and appropriate treatment for infants born at the threshold of viability. Individuals will have distinct feelings about how to implement the teachings of their own religion. This manuscript is intended to provide a basic foundation about these religions so that clinicians are able to better understand and assess the potential religious/moral complexities that families face in the process of making treatment decisions for their infants, including decisions regarding withholding and/or withdrawing active intervention.

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. Breborowicz G . Limits of fetal viability and its enhancement. Early Pregnancy 2001; 5 (1): 49–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Eidelman AI . Dilemmas in the treatment of premature infants at the borderline of viability. Rambam Maimonides Med J 2011; 2 (4):e0066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Bell EF, Walsh MC, Carlo WA, Shankaran S et al. Trends in care practices, morbidity, and mortality of extremely preterm neonates, 1993-2012. JAMA 2015; 314 (10): 1039–1051.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Jakobovits I . Jewish medical ethics–a brief overview. J Med Ethics 1983; 9 (2): 109–112.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dorff EN The Jewish Tradition Religious Beliefs and Healthcare Decisions. Religious Traditions and Healthcare Decisions handbook series.6-26.

  6. Steinberg A, Rosner F . Encyclopedia Jewish Medical Ethics: A Compilation of Jewish Medical Law on All Topics of Medical Interest. Feldheim Publishers: Jerusalem, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Steinberg A . Newborn. Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics. Feldheim Publishers: Jerusalem, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hendel N . The Life Process. In: Steinberg Y (ed) Beracha Le'Avraham in Honor of Rabbi Professor Avraham Steinberg. Old City Press: Jerusalem, 2008; 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Weitzman RG . Withdrawal of life sustaining treatment for newborn infants from a Jewish perspective. Early Hum Dev 2012; 88 (2): 91–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Al-Alaiyan S . Call to establish a national lower limit of viability. Ann Saudi Med 2008; 28 (1): 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Al-Alaiyan S . An Islamic legal perspective on the status of the malformed fetus and the previable infant. J Palliat Care Med 2014; 4 (172): 2.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Al-Alaiyan S, Al-Abdi S, Alallah J, Al-Hazzani F, AlFaleh K . Pre-viable newborns in Saudi Arabia: where are we now and what the future may hold? Current Pediatric Reviews 2012; 8: 00.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Arzuaga B, Adam H, Ahmed M, Padela A . Attitudes towards the resuscitation of periviable infants: a national survey of American Muslim physicians. Acta Paediatr 2015; 105: 260–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Donohue PK, Boss RD, Aucott SW, Keene EA, Teague P . The impact of neonatologists' religiosity and spirituality on health care delivery for high-risk neonates. J Palliat Med 2010; 13 (10): 1219–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chung GS, Yoon JD, Rasinski KA, Curlin FA . US physicians’ opinions about distinctions between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining treatment. J Relig Health e-pub ahead of print 2 January 2016.

  16. Final Communique on “The Dignity of Human Procreation and Reproductive Technologies, Anthropological and Ethical Aspects.” [Internet]. 2004 [cited 5/2/14].

  17. Camosy CC . Too Expensive to Treat? Finitude, Tragedy, and the Neonatal ICU. Wm. B. Erdmans Publishing Co: Michigan.; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  18. XII P. The Prolongation of Life: Spring 1958.

  19. McCormick RA . “To Save or Let Die: The Dilemma of Modern Medicine”. How Brave A New World?. Georgetown University Press: Washington DC, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Camosy CC . Too Expensive to Treat?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co: Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  21. O'connell TE New Catholic Encyclopedia: The Gale Group Inc.; 2003.

  22. Cummings J, Watterberg K, Eichenwald E, Poindexter B, Stewart DL, Aucott SW et al. Antenatal counseling regarding resuscitation and intensive care before 25 weeks of gestation. Pediatrics 2015; 136 (3): 588–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hexem KR, Mollen CJ, Carroll K, Lanctot DA, Feudtner C . How parents of children receiving pediatric palliative care use religion, spirituality, or life philosophy in tough times. J Palliat Med 2011; 14 (1): 39–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Puchalski C, Romer AL . Taking a spiritual history allows clinicians to understand patients more fully. J Palliat Med 2000; 3 (1):129–137.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Borneman T, Ferrell B, Puchalski CM . Evaluation of the FICA Tool for Spiritual Assessment. J Pain Syndrom Manage 2010; 40 (2): 163–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. The Joint Commission, 2010; Spiritual assessment–related standards and EPs can be found in PC.2.20, EP 4, for hospitals and ambulatory care; PC.2.20, EP 20 for long term care; PC.2.60, EPs 1 and 3 for behavioral health care; and PC.2.20, EP 8 for home care.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Rabbi Edward Reichmann, MD, Alan Fleischman, MD, Charles C Camosy, MA, PhD and Lamia Soghier, MBChB for their expert guidance and review of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Newborn Medicine, Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

    J McGuirl

  2. Division of Neonatology, Children’s Hospital Montefiore, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA

    D Campbell

Authors
  1. J McGuirl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J McGuirl.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare 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

McGuirl, J., Campbell, D. Understanding the role of religious views in the discussion about resuscitation at the threshold of viability. J Perinatol 36, 694–698 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.104

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.104

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links