AbstractPurpose of review
Summarize the literature relevant to ethical issues surrounding decisions to provide intensive care to extremely premature newborns.Recent findings
A Texas Supreme Court decision and a position paper are noteworthy for health professionals participating in management decisions with families at risk for extremely preterm delivery.Summary
In Miller v HCA, the Millers sued the Hospital Corporation of America for resuscitating their approximately 23-week gestation daughter against their wishes. The baby survived with severe neurodevelopmental disabilities. They were awarded $59.9 million in a jury trial. However, the judgment was reversed by the court of appeals, which ruled that parents have no right to withhold urgently needed life-sustaining medical treatment from children with non-terminal impairments, deformities, or disabilities, regardless of their severity. The Supreme Court of Texas upheld that ruling, but reasoned that parents have no right to refuse resuscitation of extremely premature infants prior to birth because they cannot be fully evaluated until birth; therefore, decisions before birth could not be fully informed.Summary
Robertson (Hasting Center Report 2004) supports precluding parental refusal of resuscitation before birth. He argues that parents have a right to withhold or withdraw medical treatment from a non-terminally ill child, but only if the child will lack capacity for symbolic interaction.Summary
Such severe limitation of quality of life concerns in decision making for extremely premature newborns is inconsistent with current published guidelines, the positions of noted bioethicists, and the practice of many neonatologists. Further, the additional information attained by initiating intensive care in the most premature infants does not justify doing so without parental consent.