Search

Nearly 20 years ago the EURONIC study reported that French neonatologists sometimes deemed it legitimate to terminate the lives of newborn infants when the prognosis appeared extremely poor. Parents were not always informed of these decisions. Major change has occurred since then and is described herein., Material and Methods: A survey was conducted in the Île-de-France region, from 1 January to 31 January 2016. Professionals from 15 neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) were invited to complete a questionnaire., Results: A total of 702 questionnaires were collected and 670 responses were analyzed. Knowledge of the law differed according to professional status, with 71% of MDs (medical staff, MS), compared with 28% of nonmedical staff (NMS) declaring that they had good knowledge of the law. Most MDs and NMS believed that withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments (WWLST) could be decided and implemented after a delay. Half of them thought that WWLST would always result in death. Although required by law, a consulting MD attended the collegial meeting required before deciding on WWLST in only half of the cases. Parents were almost always informed of the decision thereafter by the physician in charge of their infant. The most frequent disagreement with parents was observed when WWLST was the option selected. In this case, most professionals suggested postponing WWLST, continuing intensive care and dialogue with parents, aiming at a final shared decision. Major differences were observed between NICUs with regard to the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration. Finally, 14% of MDs declared that infant active terminations of life still occurred in their NICU. Major differences concern WWLST and active termination of life, whose meaning has been partly modified since 2001., Conclusion: Several major changes were observed in this survey: (1) treatment withdrawal decisions are made today in agreement with the law; (2) parents' information and involvement in the decision process have profoundly changed; (3) active termination of life (euthanasia) very rarely occurs; only at the end of a process in accordance with ethical principles and within the law is this decision made., (Copyright © 2019 French Society of Pediatrics. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Prematurity is one of the etiologies for severe neurological complications. Decisions to withdraw therapeutics, including artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH), are sometimes discussed. But can one withdraw ANH if the patient is a child suffering from severe neurological conditions, based on his best interests? The aim of this study was to further the understanding of the complexity of the withdrawal of ANH and its implementation in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU)., Method: This qualitative preliminary study based on a questionnaire was conducted on the staff in the NICU of the Pontoise medical center (France) in February 2012. The results were compared with the current knowledge on this issue and sociological data., Results: Ten of the hospital staff members responded to the questionnaire: 60% considered ANH as a treatment, but the status of ANH (i.e., treatment or care) remained undefined for several respondents. Comparison with the withdrawal of mechanical ventilation or adult practices seemed to be inadequate. The staff had little experience in the domain and therefore few certainties on practices. Half of the respondents indicated that terminal sedation needed to be used. For the other half, it depended on the patient's pain. Timing was also an important notion given that the newborn is a being developing and evolving each in its own way., Conclusion: The withdrawal of ANH remains controversial in the NICU. Humanity, culture, and the relationship to others are ever present in the decision-making process, creating a moral opposition above and beyond ethical reflection., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)