Published online May 1, 2008
PEDIATRICS Vol. 121 No. 5 May 2008, pp. 963-969 (doi:10.1542/peds.2007-1520)

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My File Cabinet Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Janvier, A. Articles by Barrington, K. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Janvier, A. Articles by Barrington, K. J. Related Collections Office Practice Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

ARTICLE

The Best-Interest Standard Is Not Applied for Neonatal Resuscitation Decisions

Annie Janvier, MD^a, Isabelle Leblanc, MD^b and Keith James Barrington, MB, ChB^a

Departments of ^a Pediatrics
^b Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

OBJECTIVE. Legal and ethical standards require resuscitation when it is considered to be in the patient's best interest. We hypothesized that newborn infants might be dealt with according to different standards, compared with older patients.

METHODS. An anonymous questionnaire describing 8 currently incompetent patients with potential neurologic sequelae who required resuscitation was administered to groups of physicians and students. Survival and morbidity rates were explicitly described; a very preterm infant, a full term infant and a 2-month-old infant had identical outcomes. Two patients, a 7-month-old infant and an 80-year-old patient, were previously significantly impaired. Respondents were asked whether resuscitation was in the patient's best interest and whether they would comply with the families' wishes if resuscitation was refused.

RESULTS. There was an 85% response rate (n = 524). The largest proportions of respondents stated that it was in the best interests of the 2-month-old infant and the 7-year-old child to be resuscitated (97% and 94%, respectively), followed by the 50-year-old patient and the term infant (87%), the 2 patients with 5% chance of survival (76% and 80%), the premature infant (69%), and finally the 80-year-old patient (32%). Approximately one fifth of the respondents who thought that it was in a patient's best interests to be resuscitated would nevertheless accept the family's refusal of resuscitation for all scenarios except the 80-year-old patient (72% acceptance) and the preterm infant (54% acceptance).

CONCLUSIONS. Whether resuscitation is considered in a patient's best interests is not closely related to survival rates or disability. Newborn infants and particularly preterm infants are systematically devalued, in comparison with older patients whose outcomes are the same or worse. Accepting a family's refusal of resuscitation, even among respondents who thought that resuscitation was in the patient's best interest, was much more common for the newborns.

---

Key Words: ethics • resuscitation • best-interest standard

---

Accepted Sep 20, 2007.

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. Meadow and J. Lantos Moral Reflections on Neonatal Intensive Care Pediatrics, February 1, 2009; 123(2): 595 - 597. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. J. Barrington and A. Janvier Resuscitation Decisions for Premature Newborns: In Reply Pediatrics, September 1, 2008; 122(3): 680 - 680. [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Morrison Resuscitation Decisions for Premature Newborns Pediatrics, September 1, 2008; 122(3): 679 - 680. [Full Text] [PDF]