Search

A 530-g girl born at 22 weeks and 6 days' gestation (determined by an ultrasound at 11 weeks) was admitted to the NICU. Her mother had received prenatal steroids. At 12 hours of age, she was stable on low ventilator settings. Her blood pressure was fine. Her urine output was good. After counseling, her parents voiced understanding of the risks and wanted all available life-supporting measures. Many nurses were distressed that doctors were trying to save a "22-weeker." In the past, 4 infants born at 22 weeks' gestation had been admitted to that NICU, and all had died. The attending physician on call had to deal with many sick infants and the nurses' moral distress., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2019 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

The notion of moral exchangeability is scrutinized and its proper place in neonatal care is examined. On influential moral outlooks, the neonate is morally exchangeable. On these views, if the parents are prepared to let go of the neonate with a poor prognosis and opt instead for another child who is healthy, this may be the morally right thing for them to do, and neonatal care ought to ease their choice. The notion of moral exchangeability has a different place in different moral theories. Three theories are examined: deontological ethics (insisting on the sanctity of innocent human life), according to which there is no place for the replacement of 1 child for another. It is different, however, with utilitarianism and in the moral rights theory based on self-ownership. According to utilitarianism, we are all replaceable. According to the moral rights theory, neonates are replaceable to the extent that they have not developed personhood. Even a deontological ethicist of a Kantian bent would concur here with the moral rights theory. Because influential moral theories imply that the neonate is morally exchangeable, it is reasonable within neonatal care, as a general rule, to grant the parents a veto against any attempts to save a child with a poor prognosis. In particular, if the parents are prepared instead to have another, healthy child, this is to be recommended. However, this rule cannot be strict. In rare cases, it is necessary to yield to parents who insist that their neonate be saved despite a poor prognosis., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The author has indicated he has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

The Scandinavian neighbors, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, are 3 similar countries. Still, the practice and the policy on extreme premature infants are different in each of them. Why is this so? In this article, I will try to show that the differences are not primarily a result of individual disagreement among leading doctors in the 3 countries but has a cultural explanation. I compare the policies on preterm infants with a nearby one, that of prenatal diagnosis. It seems clear that the policies and practices reflect distinct features in the mentality and values of each nation. Context matters, even in situations that at first glance appear as identical. Variation in neonatal practice and policies between countries is not necessarily bad, because the cultural context is part of the moral situation in which doctors and parents decide., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The author has indicated he has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Objectives: In many Euro-American societies, the ideal of patient and family involvement in clinical decision-making prevails. This ideal exists alongside the doctor's obligation and responsibility to make decisions and to be accountable for them. In this article, we explore how medical staff navigate the tension between autonomy and authority when engaging life-and-death decision-making in a Danish NICU., Methods: The study rests on ethnographic fieldwork in a Danish NICU, involving participant observations in everyday care and decision-making work and semistructured interviews with staff and parents. All interviews were taped and transcribed. The empirical material was analyzed using thematic coding and validated in discussions with staff, parents, and social scientists., Results: Decisions are relational. Multiple moves, spaces, temporalities, and actors are involved in life-and-death decisions in the NICU. Therefore, the concept of medical decision-making fails to do justice to the complex efforts of moving infants in or out of life. Yet, many of these decision-making moments are staged, timed, and coordinated by medical staff. Therefore, we introduce an alternative vocabulary for talking about life-and-death decision-making in neonatology to help us attend to the moral stakes, the emotional tenor, and the fine-grained mechanisms of authority implied in such decisions around tiny infants., Conclusions: We conceptualize decisions as an art of "careography." Careography is the work of aligning care for the infant, care for the parents, care for staff, care for other infants, and care for society at large, in the process of deciding whether it is best to continue or withdraw life support., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Objectives: The role of parents in life-and-death decision-making for infants born at the border of viability is challenging. Some argue that parents should have the final say in decisions about life-sustaining treatment. Others disagree. In this article, we report views from health care personnel (HCP) on the appropriate parental role., Methods: Focus group interviews with 5 different groups of HCP (neonatal nurses, midwifes, obstetricians, mother-fetal specialists, and neonatologists) dealing with life-and-death decisions throughout pregnancy and birth were performed at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and at St Olav's Hospital in Trondheim, Norway in 2014-2017. Interviews were taped and transcribed. Inductive analysis was performed for each group discussion for emergent ethical themes. A summary of the transcribed discussion was sent to the relevant focus group participants for comments., Results: Our participants felt strongly that doctors, not parents, should have the final say. They did not think parents should have to live with the burden of the decision. The possible disagreement between parents, lack of necessary knowledge, experience, time, and emotional stability all point toward the neonatologist as the optimal decision-maker, within a model of "Patient Preference-Satisfaction Paternalism.", Conclusions: The general attitude of our groups was that parents should have a say and be included in a thorough information and decision-making process. The doctor, or a team of HCP, however, should make the final decision, being in the best position both epistemologically and normatively to promote the best interest of both parents and the child., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

In this article, I identify 3 ways of justifying neonatal policies of when to provide life-saving treatment to infants who were born extremely premature: by appealing to universal principles or rights, to considerations of the best interests of the children, or to considerations of the best interests of the families. I go on to show how each of these justifications can be used to characterize the discourse on neonatal policies in 1 of the Scandinavian countries., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The author has indicated he has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Sweden has a long tradition of being at the forefront of the management of extremely preterm infants. In this article, we explore the historical background, ethical discussions, and evidence from national surveys combined with data from quality registers that form the background of the current Swedish guidelines for the care of extremely preterm infants. The current Swedish national guidelines suggest providing active care for preterm infants from 23 weeks' gestation and considering active care from 22 weeks' gestation. The survival of infants in gestational weeks 22 and 23 has increased and now exceed 50% and 60%, respectively; importantly, the Swedish proactive approach to care at the border of viability has not resulted in an increased proportion of functional impairment among survivors., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.