Decisions about life-sustaining measures in children: In whose best interests?

Center of Excellence in Pulmonary Biology, Division of Pediatric Pulmonary, Allergy and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University Medical School, Stanford, CA, USA.
Acta Paediatrica (Impact Factor: 1.67). 11/2011; 101(4):333-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02531.x
Source: PubMed


As the community of physicians and nurses dedicated to the care of critically ill children has gained ever more well-developed skill sets, the decision to either continue or forego life-sustaining measures has become less time-sensitive. As a result, there is greater opportunity for careful consideration and discussion. The core principle in making decisions about whether to continue or forego life-sustaining measures is the best interests of the child. However, there are many clinical situations wherein factors other than the child’s best interests may influence treatment decisions. The present report seeks to examine the notion that in the arena of paediatric critical care medicine, the decision-making process regarding life-sustaining measures may place insufficient priority upon the child’s best interests. We examine actual, de-identified clinical situations, encountered in the critical care arena in two categories: (i) cases that challenge the imperative to act in the child’s best interests, and (ii) cases that compromise the ability of parents and caregivers to use child-centred, best-interests approaches to decision-making. Clarity surrounding the implications of a clinical decision for the patient is essential. Decisions that are not focused squarely on the child’s best interests may compromise the delivery of optimally ethical end-of-life care.
Conclusion: The cases and analysis may benefit parents and caregivers as they struggle with the difficult ethical issues that accompany decisions to continue or forego life-sustaining measures in children.

11 Reads

  • Acta Paediatrica 04/2012; 101(4):337. DOI:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2012.02597.x · 1.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To follow changes in the causes of neonatal deaths in the NICU at Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel, over a decade; to examine trends regarding types of end-of-life-care provided (primary nonintervention, maximal intensive, and redirection of intensive care, including limitation of care and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment); and to assess the parental role in the decision-making process given that the majority of the population is religious. Methods: All neonates who died between 2000 and 2009 were identified. The causes and circumstances of death were abstracted from the medical records. Trends in end-of-life decisions were compared between 2 time periods: 2000-2004 versus 2005-2009. Results: Overall, 239 neonates died. The leading cause of death in both study periods was prematurity and its complications (76%). Among term infants, the leading cause of death was congenital anomalies (48%). Fifty-six percent of the infants received maximal intensive care; 28% had redirection of intensive care, of whom 10% had withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment; and 16% had primary nonintervention care. Over the years, maximal intensive care decreased from 65% to 46% (P < .02), whereas redirection of care increased from 19.2% to 37.5% (P < .0005). An active parental role in the end-of-life decision process increased from 38% to 84%. Conclusions: Even among religious families of extremely sick neonates, redirection of care is a feasible treatment option, suggesting that apart from survival, quality-of-life considerations emerge as an important factor in the decision-making process for the infant, parents, and caregivers.
    PEDIATRICS 05/2013; 131(6). DOI:10.1542/peds.2012-0981 · 5.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background In the ethical and clinical literature, cases of parents who want treatment for their child to be withdrawn against the views of the medical team have not received much attention. Yet resolution of such conflicts demands much effort of both the medical team and parents. Objective To discuss who can best protect a child's interests, which often becomes a central issue, putting considerable pressure on mutual trust and partnership. Methods We describe the case of a 3-year-old boy with acquired brain damage due to autoimmune-mediated encephalitis whose parents wanted to stop treatment. By comparing this case with relevant literature, we systematically explored the pros and cons of sharing end-of-life decisions with parents in cases where treatment is considered futile by parents and not (yet) by physicians. Conclusions Sharing end-of-life decisions with parents is a more important duty for physicians than protecting parents from guilt or doubt. Moreover, a request from parents on behalf of their child to discontinue treatment is, and should be, hard to over-rule in cases with significant prognostic uncertainty and/or in cases with divergent opinions within the medical team.
    Journal of Medical Ethics 06/2014; 41(2). DOI:10.1136/medethics-2013-101395 · 1.51 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications