Ethics of resuscitation for extremely premature infants: a systematic review of argument-based literature.

clinical ethics ethics neonatology newborns and minors

Journal

Journal of medical ethics
ISSN: 1473-4257
Titre abrégé: J Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7513619

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
27 Apr 2020
Historique:
received: 29 01 2020
revised: 18 03 2020
accepted: 10 04 2020
entrez: 29 4 2020
pubmed: 29 4 2020
medline: 29 4 2020
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

To present (1) the ethical concepts related to the debate on resuscitation of extremely premature infants (EPIs) as they are described in the ethical literature; and (2) the ethical arguments based on these concepts. We conducted a systematic review of the ethical literature. We selected articles based on the following predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria: (1) English language articles (2) presenting fully elaborated ethical arguments (3) on resuscitation (4) of EPIs, that is, infants born before 28 weeks of gestation. After repeated reading of articles, we developed individual summaries, conceptual schemes and an overall conceptual scheme. Ethical arguments and concepts were identified and analysed. Forty articles were included out of 4709 screened. Personhood, best interest, autonomy and justice were concepts grounding the various arguments. Regarding these concepts, included authors agreed that the best interest principle should guide resuscitation decisions, whereas justice seemed the least important concept. The arguments addressed two questions: Should we resuscitate EPIs? Who should decide? Included authors agreed that not all EPIs should be resuscitated but disagreed on what criteria should ground this decision. Overall, included authors agreed that both parents and physicians should contribute to the decision. The included publications suggest that while the best interest is the main concept guiding resuscitation decisions, justice is the least important. The included authors also agree that both parents and physicians should be actively involved in resuscitation decisions for EPIs. However, our results suggest that parents' decision should be over-ridden when in contrast with the EPI's best interest.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32341186
pii: medethics-2020-106102
doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106102
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: None declared.

Auteurs

Alice Cavolo (A)

Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven Biomedical Sciences Group, Leuven, Belgium alice.cavolo@kuleuven.be.

Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé (B)

Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven Biomedical Sciences Group, Leuven, Belgium.

Gunnar Naulaers (G)

Pregnancy, Fetus and Newborn, Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Chris Gastmans (C)

Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven Biomedical Sciences Group, Leuven, Belgium.

Classifications MeSH