scholarly journals Ethical Issues around Death and Withdrawal of Life Support in Neonatal Intensive Care

Author(s):  
Stuti Pant

AbstractAmongst all the traumatic experiences in a human life, death of child is considered the most painful, and has profound and lasting impact on the life of parents. The experience is even more complex when the death occurs within a neonatal intensive care unit, particularly in situations where there have been conflicts associated with decisions regarding the redirection of life-sustaining treatments. In the absence of national guidelines and legal backing, clinicians are faced with a dilemma of whether to prolong life-sustaining therapy even in the most brain-injured infants or allow a discharge against medical advice. Societal customs, vagaries, and lack of bereavement support further complicate the experience for parents belonging to lower socio-economic classes. The present review explores the ethical dilemmas around neonatal death faced by professionals in India, and suggests some ways forward.

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 961-963
Author(s):  
RICHARD B. MINK ◽  
MURRAY M. POLLACK

Although issues concerning withdrawal and limitation of life support are commonly discussed,1-6 actual practices in pediatrics are largely unknown and are limited to neonatal intensive care unit (ICU) studies. In the neonatal ICUs at Yale-New Haven Hospital and at Hammersmith Hospital, 14% and 30%, respectively, of all deaths followed withdrawal of care.7,8 In adult ICUs, limitation and/or withdrawal of therapy is common,9 and in one investigation, resuscitation was not attempted immediately before ICU death in nearly two-thirds of cases.10 Nonetheless, many physicians believe that most hospital deaths occur only after all resuscitative attempts have failed,6,11,12 and others believe that resuscitative efforts neither are indicated nor desirable in many cases.1,13


2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 2247-2258
Author(s):  
Mobolaji Famuyide ◽  
Caroline Compretta ◽  
Melanie Ellis

Background: Neonatal nurse practitioners have become the frontline staff exposed to a myriad of ethical issues that arise in the day-to-day environment of the neonatal intensive care unit. However, ethics competency at the time of graduation and after years of practice has not been described. Research aim: To examine the ethics knowledge base of neonatal nurse practitioners as this knowledge relates to decision making in the neonatal intensive care unit and to determine whether this knowledge is reflected in attitudes toward ethical dilemmas in the neonatal intensive care unit. Research design: This was a prospective cohort study that examined decision making at the threshold of viability, life-sustaining therapies for sick neonates, and a ranking of the five most impactful ethical issues. Participants and research context: All 47 neonatal nurse practitioners who had an active license in the State of Mississippi were contacted via e-mail. Surveys were completed online using Survey Monkey software. Ethical considerations: The study was approved by the University of Mississippi Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB; #2015-0189). Findings: Of the neonatal nurse practitioners who completed the survey, 87.5% stated that their religious practices affected their ethical decision making and 76% felt that decisions regarding life-sustaining treatment for a neonate should not involve consultation with the hospital’s legal team or risk management. Only 11% indicated that the consent process involved patient understanding of possible procedures. Participating in the continuation or escalation of care for infants at the threshold of viability was the top ethical issue encountered by neonatal nurse practitioners. Discussion: Our findings reflect deficiencies in the neonatal nurse practitioner knowledge base concerning ethical decision making, informed consent/permission, and the continuation/escalation of care. Conclusion: In addition to continuing education highlighting ethics concepts, exploring the influence of religion in making decisions and knowing the most prominent dilemmas faced by neonatal nurse practitioners in the neonatal intensive care unit may lead to insights into potential solutions.


2007 ◽  
Vol 95 ◽  
pp. 42-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Cuttini ◽  
Veronica Casotto ◽  
Marcello Orzalesi ◽  

2022 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 151-153
Author(s):  
Onaisa Aalia Mushtaq ◽  
Javaid Ahmad Mir ◽  
Bushra Mushtaq

Neonatal Intensive Care is defined as, “care for medically unstable and critically ill newborns requiring constant nursing, complicated surgical procedures, continual respiratory support, or other intensive interventions.” A NICU is a unit that provides high quality skilled care to critically ill neonates by offering facilities for continuous clinical, biochemical and radio logical monitoring and use of life support systems with the aim of improving survival of these babies. Intermediate care includes care of ill infants requiring less constant nursing care, but does not exclude respiratory support. Care of ill infants requiring less constant nursing care, but does not exclude respiratory support. When an intensive care nursery is available, the intermediate nursery serves as a “step down unit” from the intensive care area.


2020 ◽  
Vol 110 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-100
Author(s):  
Gaelle Sorin ◽  
Lionel Dany ◽  
Renaud Vialet ◽  
Laurent Thomachot ◽  
Sophie Hassid ◽  
...  

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 798-798
Author(s):  
DANIEL R. NEUSPIEL

To the Editor.— Walker et al1 have contributed to the recent plethora of studies applying cost-benefit analysis to the provision of health care. In using this dangerous method to determine the value of neonatal intensive care, they legitimize the acceptance of cost criteria for the rationing of health services. This approach reduces the measurement of human life to economic productivity and accepts the unproven contention of dwindling societal resources available for health care. Walker et al divided their subjejcts according to their neurodevelopmental evaluation into four categories: normal, (midly imapired, moderately impaired, or severely handicapped).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document