When Rights Just Won't Do: Ethical Considerations When Making Decisions for Severely Disabled Newborns.

Children born with severe handicapping conditions, where survival and quality of survival is indeterminate, present special challenges for families and health-care professionals tasked with deciding the best courses of treatment and care. The case of Baby G presents an opportunity to compare the relative effectiveness of ethical versus rights theories in providing guidance about what obligations are owed to such children at bedside and how those obligations pertain to broader societal duties in a rights framework. We review common theories of determining the "best interests standard" of newborn decision-making and the priority of families to decide on behalf of their children. We then discuss what support the rights framework of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) might lend to the best implementation of clinical ethics decision-making. Finally, we conclude that the universal nature of rights theory does not provide the particular, specific guidance needed at the bedside of the critically ill infant.

Communication of bed allocation decisions in a critical care unit and accountability for reasonableness.

BACKGROUND: Communication may affect perceptions of fair process for intensive care unit bed allocation decisions through its impact on the publicity condition of accountability for reasonableness. METHODS: We performed a qualitative case study to describe participant perceptions of the communication of bed allocation decisions in an 18-bed university affiliated, medical-surgical critical care unit at Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre. Interviewed participants were 3 critical care physicians, 4 clinical fellows in critical care, 4 resource nurses, 4 "end-users" (physicians who commonly referred patients to the unit), and 3 members of the administrative staff. Median bed occupancy during the study period (Jan-April 2003) was 18/18; daily admissions and discharges (median) were 3. We evaluated our description using the ethical framework "accountability for reasonableness" (A4R) to identify opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: The critical care physician, resource nurse, critical care fellow and end-users (trauma team leader, surgeons, neurosurgeons, anesthesiologists) functioned independently in unofficial "parallel tracks" of bed allocation decision-making; this conflicted with the official designation of the critical care physician as the sole authority. Communication between key decision-makers was indirect and could exclude those affected by the decisions; notably, family members. Participants perceived a lack of publicity for bed allocation rationales. CONCLUSION: The publicity condition should be improved for critical care bed allocation decisions. Decision-making in the "parallel tracks" we describe might be unavoidable within usual constraints of time, urgency and demand. Formal guidelines for direct communication between key participants in such circumstances would help to improve the fairness of these decisions.