Abstract
Differences concerning the care of an extremely premature infant may stem from alternative points of view on how to determine the infant's best interest. These alternatives are illustrated by differences between recently published statements by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Fetus and Newborn (COFN) and the Committee on Bioethics (COB).
The statements agree that a goal of neonatal medicine is to minimize both under- and overtreatment of the extremely premature infant, and advocate that the decision-making process ought to be based on the concept of the premature infant's best interest. However, the two AAP Committees appear to diverge in how they operationalize the concept of an infant's best interest. The COFN adopts a process consistent with an “expertise” model of best interest, while the COB process is consistent with a “negotiated” model. In the “expertise” model, medical re-evaluation of the infant's status, the best outcome data available, and the treating physician's best medical judgment determine best interest. This model limits parental and societal input, and can lead a physician to act paternalistically. In the “negotiated” model, best interest is determined by outcome data and physician assessment, as well as the moral value of an outcome. This model maximizes parental input, accepts physicians as moral agents, and respects social influence in a decision.
It is important to clarify one's model of best interest to help understand the differences of opinion regarding decisions based on best interest. The negotiated model of best interest is a more ethically appropriate model to approach decision making.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
Ethical Issues around Death and Withdrawal of Life Support in Neonatal Intensive Care
Indian Journal of Pediatrics Open Access 18 June 2021
-
The theorisation of ‘best interests’ in bioethical accounts of decision-making
BMC Medical Ethics Open Access 01 June 2021
-
Exploring implicit bias in the perceived consequences of prematurity amongst health care providers in North Queensland – a constructivist grounded theory study
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Open Access 13 January 2021
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $21.58 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn The initiation or withdrawal of treatment for high-risk newborns Peiatrics 1995 96 362–3
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Obstetric Practice Perinatal care at the threshold of viability Pediatrics 1995 96 974–6
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics Ethics and the care of critically ill infants and children Pediatrics 1996 98 149–52
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics Guidelines on forgoing life-sustaining medical treatment Pediatrics 1994 93 532–6
Deposition of Mark and Karla Miller, in Miller vs. Texas Women's Hospital, Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex., on appeal sub nom HCA Inc., vs. Miller, 14th Ct. App. Dist. Tex. No 14-98-00582-CV, 1998
Deposition of Dr. Jacobs, in Miller vs. Texas Women's Hospital, Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex., on appeal sub nom HCA Inc., vs. Miller, 14th Ct. App. Dist. Tex. No 14-98-00582-CV, 1998
Paris JJ Parental right to determine whether to use aggressive treatment for an early gestational age infant: the Messenger Case Med Law 1997 16 679–85
Marchione M For tiniest preemies: love, anguish and sometimes regret Milwaukee J Sentinel 1999 1
Montalvo N, Vila BP Parents' grand rounds speech on neonatal intensive care unit experience J Perinatol 1999 19 (7) 526–7
Stinson R, Stinson P The Long Dying of Baby Andrew Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co 1992
Kolata G Parents of tiny infants find care choices are not theirs New York Times 1991 A1
Brody JE A quality of life determined by a baby's size New York Times 1991 A1
Quindlen A Crimes against the smallest of children New York Times 1992 A21
US Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Amendments of 1984 Publ. No. 98-457
Kopelman LM, Kopelman AE, Irons TG Neonatologists judge the “Baby Doe” regulations N Engl J Med 1988 318 677–83
Frader J Review of compelled compassion N Engl J Med 1992 327 824
Silverman A Overtreatment of neonates? A personal retrospective Pediatrics 1992 90 971–6
Stahlman MT Ethical issues in the nursery: priorities versus limits J Pediatr 1990 116 167–70
Guidelines for the Responsible Utilization of Neonatal Intensive Care Wisconsin Association for Perinatal Care Position Statement, October 1998
Catlin AJ Physicians' neonatal resuscitation of extremely low-birth-weight preterm infants Image: J Nurs Scholarship 1999 31 (3) 269–75
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics Informed consent, parental permission and assent in pediatric practice Pediatrics 1995 95 314–7
Rhoden NK Treating Baby Doe: The Ethics of Uncertainty Hastings Center Report 1986 16 (4) 34–42
Veatch RM The Technical Criteria Fallacy Hastings Center Report 1977 7 (4) 15–6
Downie RS, Randall F Parenting and the best interests of minors J Med Philos 1997 22 219–31
Fost N Counseling families who have a child with a severe congenital anomaly Pediatrics 1981 67 (3) 321–4
Nelson LJ, Nelson RM Ethics and the provision of futile, harmful, or burdensome treatment to children Crit Care Med 1992 20 (3) 427–33
Quill TE, Brody H Physician recommendations and patient autonomy: finding a balance between physician power and patient choice Ann Intern Med 1996 126 763–9
Fost N Parents as decision makers for children Primary Care 1986 13 (2) 285–93
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leuthner, S. Decisions Regarding Resuscitation of the Extremely Premature Infant and Models of Best Interest. J Perinatol 21, 193–198 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7200523
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7200523
This article is cited by
-
Ethical Issues around Death and Withdrawal of Life Support in Neonatal Intensive Care
Indian Journal of Pediatrics (2022)
-
Exploring implicit bias in the perceived consequences of prematurity amongst health care providers in North Queensland – a constructivist grounded theory study
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2021)
-
The theorisation of ‘best interests’ in bioethical accounts of decision-making
BMC Medical Ethics (2021)
-
Professional ethics: the case of neonatology
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy (2019)
-
International variations in application of the best-interest standard across the age spectrum
Journal of Perinatology (2017)