Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2001; 18(3): 117-128
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-14530
REVIEW ARTICLE

Copyright © 2001 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Limits of Viability: Dilemmas, Decisions, and Decision Makers

Deborah E. Campbell1 , Alan R. Fleischman2
  • 1Division of Neonatology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
  • 2Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2001 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Decision-making about treatments for neonates at the threshold of viability is a complex process that must involve physicians, other health-care professionals, and families. Parents and families bring personal, ideological, cultural, and religious beliefs into their relationship with health-care professionals that have the potential to conflict with professional perceptions of good medical care and the interests of the patient. Neonatologists often find themselves criticized for overtreatment of these extremely premature infants. Yet, from the perspective of the health-care provider, perceived obligations in the face of an uncertain outcome, parental wishes as well as perceptions about legal mandates are often cited as the reasons for the provision of such extraordinary care. Recent reductions in perinatal mortality for premature infants born at the cusp of viability, in conjunction with emerging data on the substantial short- and long-term morbidities experienced by infants born between 23-25 weeks' gestation, have engendered a serious debate about professional and parental obligations in the face of extreme uncertainty. The fundamental questions are who ought to be permitted, under the present circumstances of rapidly evolving technologies and innovative therapies, to decide the best interests of the child, and how to achieve consensus regarding treatment goals when the outcome is uncertain and there are divergent views with regard to the infant's best interests. As survival for these infants increases and morbidity remains a significant likelihood, physicians must be cognizant of the power of their technology to impose undesired burdens on these infants. A reasonable, and reasoned, approach for these vulnerable infants requires collaborative decision making incorporating professional recommendations, with an openness, trust and willingness to work with parents to ascertain the best interests of an individual infant. Understanding of and respect for the differing views of the moral obligations of perinatal specialists and families can aid neonatal professionals in resolving interdisciplinary and physician-family conflicts as well as facilitating resolution of neonatal ethical dilemmas.

KEYWORD

Perinatal ethics - viability - decision-making - parents' rights

REFERENCES

  • 1 Lorenz J M. Survival of the extremely preterm infant in North American in the 1990s.  Clin Perinatol . 2000;  27 255-262
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Hack M, Fanaroff A. Outcomes of children of extremely low birthweight and gestational age in the 1990's.  Early Hum Dev . 1999;  53 193-218
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sauve R S, Robertson C, Etches P, Byrne P J, Dayer-Zamora V. Before viability: a geographically based outcome study of infants weighing 500 grams or less at birth.  Pediatrics . 1998;  101 438-445
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Tommiska V, Heinonen K, Ikonen S. A national short-term follow-up study of extremely low birth weight infants born in Finland in 1996-1997. Pediatrics 2001: 107 Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/107/1/e2
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Wood N S, Marlow N, Costeloe K. Neurologic and developmental disability after extremely preterm birth.  N Engl J Med . 2000;  343 378-384
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Hack M, Friedman H, Fanaroff A A. Outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants.  Pediatrics . 1998;  98 931-937
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Vohr B R, Wright L L, Dusick A M. Neurodevelopmental and functional outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants in the national institute of child health and human development neonatal research network, 1993- 1994.  Pediatrics . 2000;  105 1216-1226
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Costloe K, Hennessy E, Gibson A T, et al, for the EPICure Study Group. The EPICure Study: outcomes to discharge from hospital for infants born at the threshold of viability.  Pediatrics . 2000;  106 659-671
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Oishi M, Nishida H, Sasaki T. Japanese experience with micropremies weighing less than 600 grams born between 1984 to 1993. Pediatrics 1997: 99 Available at: http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/99/6/e7
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Whyte H E, Fitzhardinge P M, Shennan A T. Extreme immaturity: outcome of 568 pregnancies of 23-26 weeks' gestation.  Obstet Gynecol . 1993;  82 1-7
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Allen M C, Donohue P K, Dusman A E. The limit of viability: neonatal outcome of infants born at 22 to 25 weeks' gestation.  N Engl J Med . 1993;  329 1597-1601
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Doron M W, Veness-Meehan K A, Margolis L H. Delivery room resuscitation decisions for extremely premature infants.  Pediatrics . 1998;  102 574-582
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Finer N N, Tarin T, Vaucher Y E, Barrington K, Bejar R. Intact survival in extremely low birth weight infants after delivery room resuscitation. Pediatrics 1999: 104 Available at: http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/104/4/e40
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Barton L, Hodgman J E, Pavlova Z. Causes of death in the extremely low birth weight infant.  Pediatrics . 1999;  103 446-451
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Meadow W, Reimshishel B A, Lantos J. Birth weight-specific mortality for extremely low birth weight infants vanishes by four days of life: epidemiology and ethics in the neonatal intensive care unit.  Pediatrics . 1996;  97 636-643
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Hack M, Wilson-Costello D, Friedman H. Neurodevelopment and predictors of outcomes of children with birth weights less than 1000 grams.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med . 2000;  154 725-731
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Peterson B S, Vohr B, Staib L H. Regional brain volume abnormalities and long-term cognitive outcome in preterm infants.  JAMA . 2000;  284 1939-1947
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Hack M, Taylor H G, Klein N, Mercuri-Minich N. Functional limitations and special health care needs of 10-14 year old children weighing less than 750 grams at birth.  Pediatrics . 2000;  106 554-560
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Saigal S, Rosenbaum P T, Feeny D, Burrows E. Parental perspectives of the health status and health-related quality of life of teen-aged children who were extremely low birth weight and term controls.  Pediatrics . 2000;  105 569-574
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Saigal S, Hoult L A, Streiner D L. School difficulties at adolescence in a regional cohort of children who were extremely low birth weight.  Pediatrics . 2000;  105 325-331
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Meadow W, Lantos J D, Mokalla M, Reimshisel T. Distributive justice across generations: epidemiology of ICU care for the very young and the very old.  Clin Perinatol . 1996;  23 597-607
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 U.S. Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Amendments Act of 1984; Public law 98, 457. Amendments to Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act and Child Abuse Prevention and Adoption Reform Act, Amendment No. 3385. Congressional Record 1984: Senate S8951-Senate S8956
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Rhoden N K. The treatment dilemmas for imperiled newborns: why quality of life counts.  South Calif Law Rev . 1985;  58 1314
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Stevenson D K, Goldworth A. Ethical dilemmas in the delivery room.  Semin Perinatol . 1998;  22 198-206
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Brody H. In the best interests.  Hastings Cent Rep . 1998;  18 37-38
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Committee on Bioethics-American Academy of Pediatrics. Ethics and the care of critically ill infants and children (RE9624).  Pediatrics . 1996;  98 149-152
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Committee on Fetus and Newborn-American Academy of Pediatrics. The initiation or withdrawal of treatment for high-risk newborns (RE9532).  Pediatrics . 1995;  96 362-363
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. Perinatal care at the limit of viability.  (RE9541) Pediatrics . 1995;  96 974-976
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Bioethics Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Treatment decisions for infants and children.  1986;  B86-B01
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society & Maternal-Fetal Medicine Committee, Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Management of the woman with threatened birth of an infant of extremely low gestational age.  Can Med Assoc J. 1994;  151 547-551 553
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 van der Heide A, van der Maas J P, van der Wal G. The role of parents in end-of-life decisions in neonatology: physicians' views and practices.  Pediatrics . 1998;  101 413-418
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Kollée L AA, van der Heide A, de Leeuw R. End-of-life decisions in neonates.  Semin Perinatol . 1999;  23 234-241
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Sanders M R, Donohue P K, Oberdorf M A, et al: Impact of the perception of viability on resource allocation in the neonatal intensive c are. J Perinatol .  1998;  18 347-353
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Sanders M R, Donohue P K, Oberdorf M A. Perceptions of the limit of viability: neonatologists' attitudes toward extremely preterm infants.  J Perinatol . 1995;  15 494-502
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Boyle R J, Kattwinkel J. Ethical issues surrounding resuscitation.  Clin Perinatol . 1999;  26 779-792
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Ginsberg H G, Goldsmith J P. Controversies in neonatal resuscitation.  Clin Perinatol . 1998;  25 1-15
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Wall S N, Partridge J C. Death in the intensive care nursery: physician practice of withdrawing and withholding life support.  Pediatrics . 1997;  99 64-70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Todres I D, Guillemin J, Catlin E A. Moral and ethical dilemmas in critically ill newborns: a 20-year follow-up survey of Massachusetts pediatricians.  J Perinatol . 2000;  1 6-12
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Cook L A, Watchko J F. Decision making for the critically ill neonate near the end of life.  J Perinatol . 1996;  16 133-136
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Morse S B, Haywood J L, Goldenberg R L. Estimation of neonatal outcome and perinatal therapy use.  Pediatrics . 2000;  105 1046-1050
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Troug R D, Brett A S, Frader J. The problem with futility.  NEJM . 1992;  326 1560-1564
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Fleischman A R, Chervenak F A, McCullough L B. The physician's moral obligations to the pregnant woman, the fetus, and the child.  Semin Perinatol . 1998;  22 184-188
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Yen B M, Schneiderman L J. Impact of pediatric ethics consultations on patients, families, social workers, and physicians.  J Perinatol . 1999;  19 373-378
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Fleischman A R, Nolan K, Dubler N N. Caring for gravely ill children.  Pediatrics . 1992;  94 422-439
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Harrison H. The principles for family-centered neonatal care.  Pediatrics . 1993;  92 643-650
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Wharton R H, Levine, Buka S. Advance care planning for children with special care needs: a survey of parental attitudes.  Pediatrics . 1996;  97 682-687
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Guidelines for the Management of Low Birth Weight/ Early Gestational Age Newborns (23-26 weeks, 400-750 grams). Denver, CO: The Colorado Collective for Medical Decisions 1999
  • 48 Community recommendations for appropriate, humane medical care for dying or irreversibly ill patients. in Echo, Extreme Care, Humane Options, Sacramento Healthcare Decisions, July 1997
  • 49 Green R M, Little G A. Dreams and Dilemmas, Study Guide, Parents and the Practice of Neonatal Care. The Ethics Institute, Dartmouth University 1998
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 50 Doroshow R W, Hodgman J E, Pomerance J J. Treatment decisions for newborns at the threshold of viability: an ethical dilemma.  J Perinatol . 2000;  20 379-383
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Kitchens M J. What they don't teach in medical school: a parent's list of ``do's and don'ts'' for medical professions. Exceptional Parent, August 1997: 27
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 52 Perlman N B, Freedman J L, Abramovitch A. Informational needs of parents of sick neonates.  Pediatrics . 1991;  88 512-518
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Heimer C A, Staffen L R. For the Sake of the Children: The Social Organization of Responsibility in the Hospital and the Home.  Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1998
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 54 Montalvo N, Vila B P. Parent's grand rounds speech on neonatal intensive care unit experience.  J Perinatol . 1999;  19 527-529
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Koh T H G H, Harrison H, Morley C. Gestation versus outcome table for parents of extremely premature infants.  J Perinatol . 1999;  19 452-453
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Culver G, Fallon K, Londner R B. Letter to the Editor: informed decisions for extremely low-birth-weight infants.  JAMA . 2000;  283 3201
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Jellinek M S, Catlin E A, Todres I D, Cassem E H. Facing tragic decisions with parents in the neonatal intensive care unit: clinical perspectives.  Pediatrics . 1992;  89 119-126
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Klein S D. The challenge of communicating with parents.  J Dev Behav Pediatr . 1993;  14 184-191
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Affleck G, Tennen H, Rowe J. Infants in Crisis: How Parents Cope with Newborn Intensive Care and Its Aftermath.  New York: Springer-Verlag; 1991
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 60 Cooper-Patrick L, Gallo J J, Gonzales J J. Race, gender, and partnership in the patient-physician relationship.  JAMA . 1999;  282 583-589
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Cole F S. Extremely preterm birth: defining the limits of hope [editorial].  NEJM . 2000;  343 429-430
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 62 Pinkerton J V, Finnerty J J, Lombardo P A. Parental rights at the birth of a near-viable infant: conflicting perspectives.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1997;  177 283-290
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 63 Saigal S, Stoskopf B L, Feeny D. Differences in preferences for neonatal outcomes among health care professionals, parents, and adolescents.  JAMA . 1999;  281 1991-1997
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 Gould J B, Benitz W E, Liu H. Mortality and time to death in very low birth weight infants: California, 1987 and 1993. Pediatrics 2000: 105 Available at: http://www. pediatrics.org/cgi/content/ful/105/3/e37
    Search in Google Scholar