Published online July 2, 2007
PEDIATRICS Vol. 120 No. 1 July 2007, pp. e20-e28 (doi:10.1542/10.1542/peds.2006-2555)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Verhagen, A. A. E.
Right arrow Articles by Sauer, P. J. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Verhagen, A. A. E.
Right arrow Articles by Sauer, P. J. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Office Practice
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

ARTICLE

Physician Medical Decision-making at the End of Life in Newborns: Insight Into Implementation at 2 Dutch Centers

A. A. Eduard Verhagen, MD, JDa, Mark A. H. van der Hoeven, MD, PhDb, R. Corine van Meerveld, MDa and Pieter J. J. Sauer, MD, PhDa

a Department of Pediatrics, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
b Division of Neonatology, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands

OBJECTIVE. Decisions regarding end-of-life care in critically ill newborns in the Netherlands have received considerable criticism from the media and from the public. This might be because of a lack of proper information and knowledge. Our purpose was to provide detailed information about how and when the implementation of end-of-life decisions, which are based on quality-of-life considerations, takes place.

METHODS. We reviewed the charts of all infants who died within the first 2 months of life at 2 university hospitals in the Netherlands from January to July 2005 and extracted all relevant information about the end-of-life decisions. We interviewed the responsible neonatologists about the end-of-life decisions and the underlying quality-of-life considerations and about the process of implementation.

RESULTS. Of a total of 30 deaths, 28 were attributable to withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. In 18 of 28 cases, the infant had no chance to survive; in 10 cases, the final decision was based on the poor prognosis of the infant. In 6 patients, 2 successive different end-of-life decisions were made. The arguments that most frequently were used to conclude that quality of life was deemed poor were predicted suffering and predicted inability of verbal and nonverbal communication. Implementation consisted of discontinuation of ventilatory support and alleviation of pain and symptoms. Neuromuscular blockers were added shortly before death in 5 cases to prevent gasping, mostly on parental request.

CONCLUSIONS. The majority of deaths were attributable to withholding or withdrawing treatment. In most cases, the newborn had no chance to survive and prolonging of treatment could not be justified. In the remaining cases, withholding or withdrawing treatment was based on quality-of-life considerations, mostly the predicted suffering and predicted inability of verbal and nonverbal communication. Potentially life-shortening medication played a minor role as a cause of death.

Key Words: bioethics • withholding/withdrawing treatment • NICU • palliative care

Abbreviations: EoL—end-of-life • NCTS—no chance to survive • PP—very poor prognosis • NMB—neuromuscular blocker

Accepted Dec 12, 2006.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?