Ethical issues in treatment of babies born at 22 weeks of gestation.

Many centres now report that more than half of babies born at 22 weeks survive and most survivors are neurocognitively intact. Still, many centres do not offer life-sustaining treatment to babies born this prematurely. Arguments for not offering active treatment reflect concerns about survival rates, rates of neurodevelopmental impairment and cost. In this essay, I examine each of these arguments and find them ethically problematic. I suggest that current data ought to lead to two changes. First, institutional culture should change at institutions that do not offer treatment to babies born at 22 weeks. Second, we need more research to understand best practices for these tiny babies.

El acceso parental a las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos Neonatales en tiempos de pandemia / Parental Access to Neonatal Intensive Care Units in times of pandemic / L'accés parental a les Unitats de Cures Intensives Neonatals en temps de pandemia

La llegada de la pandemia por coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (la enfermedad de la COVID-19) a España también ha repercutido en el acceso parental a las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos Neonatales (UCIN). Al comienzo de la pandemia se tomaron las medidas que, fundamentadas en criterios de salud pública, se consideraron necesarias. A medida que avanzaba el conocimiento científico sobre la COVID-19, y en base a los nuevos datos obtenidos, se comenzaron a adaptar las medidas inicialmente establecidas. Sin embargo, creemos que la adaptación de alguno de estos protocolos, en concreto el del acceso parental a las UCIN, no ha sido la idónea desde el punto de vista bioético y del interés superior del menor. A lo largo de este artículo exponemos esas insuficiencias

The arrival of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19 disease) in Spain has also had an impact on parental access to Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU). At the beginning of the pandemic, measures were taken that, based on public health criteria, and were considered necessary. As scientific knowledge about COVID-19 advanced, and based on the new data obtained, the measures initially established began to be adapted. However, we believe that the adaptation of some of these protocols, specifically that of parental access to NICU, has not been the ideal one from the bioethical point of view and in the best interest of the minor. Throughout this article we expose these insufficiencies

L'arribada de la pandèmia per coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (la malaltia de la COVID-19) a Espanya també ha repercutit en l'accés parental a les Unitats de Cures Intensives Neonatals (UCIN). A l'inici de la pandèmia es van prendre les mesures que, fonamentades en criteris de salut pública, es van considerar necessàries. A mesura que avançava el coneixement científic sobre la COVID-19, I en base a les noves dades obtingudes, es van començar a adaptar, les mesures inicialment establertes. No obstant això, creiem que l'adaptació d'algun d'aquests protocols, en concret el de l'accés parental a les UCIN, no ha estat la idònia des del punt de vista bioètic I de l'interès superior del menor. Al llarg d'aquest article exposem aquestes insuficiències

Historical Perspectives: Shared Decision Making in the NICU.

The ethical dilemmas and predominant frameworks surrounding decision making for critically ill newborns have evolved substantially over the last 40 years. A shared decision-making approach is now favored, involving an exchange of information between parents and clinicians that emphasizes parental values and preferences, resulting in a personalized approach to decision making. In this review, we summarize the history of clinical decision making with a focus on the NICU, highlight different models of decision making, describe the advantages and current limitations of shared decision making, and discuss the ongoing and future challenges of decision making in the NICU amidst medical innovations and emerging technologies.

Limitation of life-sustaining treatment in NICU: Physicians' beliefs and attitudes in the Buenos Aires region.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the ethical beliefs and attitudes of Argentinean neonatologists regarding limitation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) for very sick infants. METHODS: We used an anonymous questionnaire including direct questions and hypothetical clinical cases (inevitable demise and anticipated survival with severe long-term disability). Multivariable analysis was carried out to assess the relation between type of clinical case and physicians' LST attitudes. RESULTS: Overall, 315 neonatologists in 34 units in the Buenos Aires region participated (response rate 54%). Most responders would agree with decisions to start or continue LST. In both clinical cases, continuing current treatment with no therapeutic escalation was the only form of LST limitation acceptable to a substantial proportion (about 60%) of neonatologists. Agreement with LST limitation was slightly but significantly more likely when death was inevitable. CONCLUSION: Argentinean neonatologists showed a conservative attitude regarding LST limitation. Patient prognosis and options of non-treatment decision significantly influenced their choices.

Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments for neonate in Japan: Are hospital practices associated with physicians' beliefs, practices, or perceived barriers?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current status of withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining interventions (LSI) for neonates in Japan and to identify physician- and institutional-related factors that may affect advance care planning (ACP) practices with parents. STUDY DESIGN: A self-reported questionnaire was administered to assess frequency of withholding and withdrawing intensive care at the respondent's facility, the physician's degree of affirming various beliefs about end-of-life care that was compared to 7 European countries, their self-reported ACP practices and perceived barriers to ACP. Three neonatologists at all 298 facilities accredited by the Japan Society for Neonatal Health and Development were surveyed, with 572 neonatologists at 217 facilities responding. RESULTS: At 76% of facilities, withdrawing intensive care treatments was "never" done, while withholding intensive care had been done "sometimes" or more frequently at 82% of facilities. Japanese neonatologists differed from European neonatologists regarding their degree of affirmation of 3 out of 7 queried beliefs about end-of-life care. In hospitals that were more likely to "sometimes" (or more often) withdraw treatments, respondents were less likely to affirm beliefs about doing "everything possible" or providing the "maximum of intensive care". Self-reported ACP practices did not vary between neonatologists based on their hospital's overall pattern of withholding or withdrawing treatments. CONCLUSION: Among NICU facilities in Japan, 21% had been sometimes withdrawing LSI and 82% had been "sometimes" withholding LSI. Institutional treatment practices may have a strong association with physicians' beliefs that then affect end-of-life discussions, but not with self-reported ACP practices.

The Dilemma of Daily Physical Examination in the NICU.

Babies in the NICU should be managed in a neurodevelopment-friendly environment. Frequent handling by multiple examiners potentially increases the risk of cross infection. Interruption in kangaroo care is not advisable unless urgent. A minimum of three-point exam should be done (chest, heart, and abdomen) using a stethoscope and gentle palpation. However, the infant should not be wakened from sleep and all handling should be synchronized with the touch time.

Neonatal end-of-life decision-making almost 20 years after the EURONIC study: A French survey.

Nearly 20 years ago the EURONIC study reported that French neonatologists sometimes deemed it legitimate to terminate the lives of newborn infants when the prognosis appeared extremely poor. Parents were not always informed of these decisions. Major change has occurred since then and is described herein. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A survey was conducted in the Île-de-France region, from 1 January to 31 January 2016. Professionals from 15 neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) were invited to complete a questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 702 questionnaires were collected and 670 responses were analyzed. Knowledge of the law differed according to professional status, with 71% of MDs (medical staff, MS), compared with 28% of nonmedical staff (NMS) declaring that they had good knowledge of the law. Most MDs and NMS believed that withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments (WWLST) could be decided and implemented after a delay. Half of them thought that WWLST would always result in death. Although required by law, a consulting MD attended the collegial meeting required before deciding on WWLST in only half of the cases. Parents were almost always informed of the decision thereafter by the physician in charge of their infant. The most frequent disagreement with parents was observed when WWLST was the option selected. In this case, most professionals suggested postponing WWLST, continuing intensive care and dialogue with parents, aiming at a final shared decision. Major differences were observed between NICUs with regard to the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration. Finally, 14% of MDs declared that infant active terminations of life still occurred in their NICU. Major differences concern WWLST and active termination of life, whose meaning has been partly modified since 2001. CONCLUSION: Several major changes were observed in this survey: (1) treatment withdrawal decisions are made today in agreement with the law; (2) parents' information and involvement in the decision process have profoundly changed; (3) active termination of life (euthanasia) very rarely occurs; only at the end of a process in accordance with ethical principles and within the law is this decision made.

Ethical tensions in the informed consent process for randomized clinical trials in emergency obstetric and newborn care in low and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: There is unanimous agreement regarding the need to ethically conduct research for improving therapy for patients admitted to hospital with acute conditions, including in emergency obstetric care. We present a conceptual analysis of ethical tensions inherent in the informed consent process for randomized clinical trials for emergency obstetric care and suggest ways in which these could be mitigated. DISCUSSION: A valid consenting process, leading to an informed consent, is a cornerstone of this aspect necessary for preservation and maintenance of respect for autonomy and dignity. In emergency obstetric care research, obtaining informed consent can be problematic, leading to ethical tension between different moral considerations. Potential participants may be vulnerable due to severity of disease, powerlessness or impaired decisional capacity. Time for the consent process is limited, and some interventions have a narrow therapeutic window. These factors create ethical tension in allowing potentially beneficial research while avoiding potential harms and maintaining respect for dignity, human rights, justice and autonomy of the participants. CONCLUSION: Informed consent in emergency obstetric care in low- and middle-income countries poses numerous ethical challenges. Allowing research on vulnerable populations while maintaining respect for participant dignity and autonomy, protecting participants from potential harms and promoting justice underlie the ethical tensions in the research in emergency obstetric and newborn care. Those involved in research conduct or oversight have a duty of fair inclusion, to avoid denying participants the right to participate and to any potential research benefits.

Rapid Challenges: Ethics and Genomic Neonatal Intensive Care.

NICUs are a priority implementation area for genomic medicine. Rapid genomic testing in the NICU is expected to be genomic medicine's "critical application," providing such clear benefits that it drives the adoption of genomics more broadly. Studies from multiple centers worldwide have now demonstrated the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of rapid genomic sequencing in this setting, paving the way for widespread implementation. However, the introduction of this potentially powerful tool for predicting future impairment in the NICU also raises profound ethical challenges. Developing models of good practice that incorporate the identification, exploration, and analysis of ethical issues will be critical for successful implementation. In this article, we analyze 3 such issues: (1) the value and meaning of gaining consent to a complex test in a stressful, emotionally charged environment; (2) the effect of rapid diagnosis on parent-child bonding and its implications for medical and family decisions, particularly in relation to treatment limitation; and (3) distributive justice (ie, whether the substantial cost and diversion of resources to deliver rapid genomic testing in the NICU can be justified).

Do Sociocultural Factors Influence Periviability Counseling and Treatment More Than Science? Lessons From Scandinavia.

All of us (doctors, parents, bioethicists, and health policy makers) think differently about premature infants who require neonatal intensive care than we do about other patients who are critically ill. In most other clinical circumstances, those that involve patients other than premature infants, our first impulse when confronted with a patient in an emergency is to do whatever we can to rescue the patient. We offer life-sustaining treatments first and ask questions later. With extremely premature infants, by contrast, we first ask questions, ponder our options, and try to develop policies about whether it is appropriate to try to save these infants. We wonder aloud whether these tiny patients are even worth saving. In most countries that have NICUs, and in many hospitals, doctors and policy makers have explicitly specified which infants ought to be offered life-sustaining treatment and which should be allowed to die. Regarding the treatment of infants who are born at the borderline of viability, there are markedly distinct approaches in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. In each country, the prevailing approaches were developed after careful consideration of many factors, including public sentiment, professional preferences, reported outcomes, philosophical factors, and considerations of cost and cost-effectiveness. In this article, we comment on some of these considerations and the soundness of the resulting practice variations.

Decision-making at the limit of viability: differing perceptions and opinions between neonatal physicians and nurses.

BACKGROUND: In the last 20 years, the chances for intact survival for extremely preterm infants have increased in high income countries. Decisions about withholding or withdrawing intensive care remain a major challenge in infants born at the limits of viability. Shared decision-making regarding these fragile infants between health care professionals and parents has become the preferred model today. However, there is an ongoing ethical debate on how decisions regarding life-sustaining treatment should be reached and who should have the final word when health care professionals and parents do not agree. We designed a survey among neonatologists and neonatal nurses to analyze practices, difficulties and parental involvement in end-of-life decisions for extremely preterm infants. METHODS: All 552 physicians and nurses with at least 12 months work experience in level III neonatal intensive care units (NICU) in Switzerland were invited to participate in an online survey with 50 questions. Differences between neonatologists and NICU nurses and between language regions were explored. RESULTS: Ninety six of 121 (79%) physicians and 302 of 431(70%) nurses completed the online questionnaire. The following difficulties with end-of-life decision-making were reported more frequently by nurses than physicians: insufficient time for decision-making, legal constraints and lack of consistent unit policies. Nurses also mentioned a lack of solidarity in our society and shortage of services for disabled more often than physicians. In the context of limiting intensive care in selected circumstances, nurses considered withholding tube feedings and respiratory support less acceptable than physicians. Nurses were more reluctant to give parents full authority to decide on the course of action for their infant. In contrast to professional category (nurse or physician), language region, professional experience and religion had little influence if any on the answers given. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians and nurses differ in many aspects of how and by whom end-of-life decisions should be made in extremely preterm infants. The divergencies between nurses and physicians may be due to differences in ethics education, varying focus in patient care and direct exposure to the patients. Acknowledging these differences is important to avoid potential conflicts within the neonatal team but also with parents in the process of end-of-life decision-making in preterm infants born at the limits of viability.

Ethical and end of life considerations for neonates requiring ECMO support.

ECMO has proven to be a life-saving intervention for a variety of disease entities with a high rate of survival in the neonatal population. However, ECMO requires clinical teams to engage in many ethical considerations. Even with ongoing improvements in technology and expertise, some patients will not survive a course of ECMO. An unsuccessful course of ECMO can be difficult to accept and cause a great deal of angst. These questions can result in real conflict both within the care team, and between the care team and the family. Herein we explore a range of ethical considerations that may be encountered when caring for a patient on ECMO, with a particular focus on those courses where it appears likely that the patient will not survive. We then consider how a palliative care approach may provide a tool set to help engage the team and family in confronting the difficult decision to discontinue ECMO.