The management of an infant after a decision to withdraw active treatment creates dilemmas. Both lingering death and active killing are undesirable, but palliative interventions can hasten death. We investigated what staff on our neonatal unit thought were the limits of acceptable practice and why. We administered a structured interview to elucidate their views, and asked them to justify their answers. The interviews were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. A total of 25 participants (15 nurses and 10 doctors) were recruited. 80% emphasized the importance of pain relief following withdrawal, 60% mentioned meeting parental needs at that time. 76% agreed that death can be a desired consequence of withdrawal, yet 52% felt that death should never be hastened. 96% felt that morphine is acceptable after withdrawal, and 72% would give a higher than normal dose if necessary. 56% would stop paralysis at extubation but not reverse it, while 24% would continue paralysis. 16% would consider a drug that ended life instantly in some cases. A wide variety of views emerged, but there were two main positions, a cautious majority, and a more proactive minority. Apparent contradictions within the majority position could be explained using the doctrine of double effect and the acts and omissions distinction.
Is the doctrine of double effect irrelevant in end-of-life decision making?