Navigating parental disagreement: ethical analysis and a proposed approach.

Shared decision-making in pediatrics can be problematic when disagreements arise. The impermissible-permissible-obligatory (I-P-O) framework helps define the limits of parental authority when clinicians disagree with parents. There is little guidance in the literature, however, on making critical clinical decisions when parents disagree with each other. We use a clinical case involving parental disagreement over resuscitation at borderline gestational age to provide context for an analysis of several potential approaches based on established ethical principles of pediatric decision-making. We identify four potential options for delivery room care: (1) Defer to the pregnant parent; (2) withhold resuscitation unless both parents agree to it; (3) attempt resuscitation if either parent requests it; (4) decide about resuscitation using a framework of advisability. The merits and flaws of each approach are discussed. We propose an expansion of the I-P-O framework that uses consideration of clinical details, an assessment of the patient's best interest, and parental values to determine clinical advisability to guide decision-making in the setting of parental discordance.

Ethical and Legal Perspectives on the Treatment of Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy in the Newborn.

Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) in neonates can cause severe, life-long functional impairments or death. Treatment of these neonates can involve ethically challenging questions about if, when, and how it may be appropriate to limit life-sustaining medical therapy. Further, parents whose infants suffer severe neurologic damage may seek recourse in the form of a medical malpractice lawsuit. This study uses several hypothetical cases to highlight important ethical and legal considerations in the care of infants with HIE.

Factors Considered by Interprofessional Team for Treatment Decision in Hip Fracture with Dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with dementia are at high risk for hip fractures and often have poor outcomes when a fracture is sustained. Despite this poor prognosis, little data are available on what factors should be prioritized to guide surgical decision making in these cases. We aimed to understand the decision-making process for older dementia patients hospitalized after hip fractures. DESIGN: We performed a qualitative analysis of in-depth elite interviews conducted with a clinical care team involved in management of patients with dementia after hospitalization for hip fractures. SETTING: Interviews were conducted with an interprofessional team involved in the care of patients with dementia after being hospitalized for hip fractures. PARTICIPANTS: Interviewees included nine orthopaedic surgeons, three hospitalists, three geriatricians, five nurses, three occupational therapists, three physical therapists, and two clinical ethicists. MEASUREMENTS: Verbatim transcripts of the interviews were analyzed and coded using QSR International's NVivo 10 qualitative database management software. RESULTS: The three main themes that most interviewees discussed were pain control, functional status, and medical comorbidities. Interviewees brought up many factors related to restoring functional status including baseline functional status, rehabilitation potential, social support, and the importance of mobility. Dementia and its impact on rehabilitation potential were mentioned by all geriatricians. CONCLUSION: Although frailty, prognosis, and life expectancy were largely absent from the responses, the emphasis on dementia, advanced directives, and involving family or caregivers by the three geriatricians indicates the importance of including geriatricians in the decision-making team for these patients.