Advertising Disclaimer
Published online March 30, 2009
PEDIATRICS Vol. 123 No. 4 April 2009, pp. 1088-1094 (doi:10.1542/peds.2008-0643)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow View eLetters
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Partridge, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Martinez, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Partridge, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by Martinez, A. M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Premature & Newborn
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

Resuscitation of Likely Nonviable Newborns: Would Neonatology Practices in California Change if the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act Were Enforced?

J. Colin Partridge, MD, MPHa, Mya D. Sendowskia,b, Eleanor A. Drey, MD, EdMc, Alma M. Martinez, MD, MPHa

a Departments of Pediatrics and Obstetrics and Gynecology
c Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California
b Berkeley High School, Berkeley, California

BACKGROUND. The effects of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which defines the legal status of live-born infants have not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVE. To study neonatologists' perceptions and the potential effects of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and subsequent Department of Health and Human Services enforcement guidelines on resuscitation and comfort care for infants born at 20 to 24 weeks' gestation.

METHODS. From August 2005 to November 2005, we mailed surveys to all 354 neonatologists practicing in California. Surveys asked physicians to characterize their knowledge of and attitudes toward this legislation and enforcement guidelines, current resuscitation and comfort-care practices for extreme prematurity, anticipated changes in practice were the enforced, and demographic information. We hypothesized that enforcement would alter thresholds for resuscitation and care.

RESULTS. We obtained 156 completed surveys (response rate: 44%); 140 fulfilled criteria for analysis. More than half of the neonatologists had not heard of this Act or the enforcement guidelines. Screening examinations at birth were infrequent (<20%) at gestational ages of <23 weeks. Although 63% of neonatologists felt that the Act clarified the definition of born-alive infants, nearly all (>90%) criticized the legislation; only 6% felt that it should be enforced. If it were enforced, physicians predicted that they would lower birth weight and gestational age thresholds for resuscitation and comfort care.

CONCLUSIONS. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act clarified the legal status of "born-alive" infants, but enforcement guidelines fail to clarify what measures are appropriate when survival is unlikely. The Act may constrain resuscitation options offered to parents, because neonatologists anticipate medicolegal threats if they pursue nonintervention. If this legislation were enforced, respondents predicted more aggressive resuscitation potentially increasing risks of disability or delayed death. Until outcomes for infants of <24 weeks' gestation improve, legislation that changes resuscitation practices for extreme prematurity seems an unjustifiable restriction of physician practice and parental rights.

Key Words: extreme prematurity • resuscitation • death and dying • decision-making • ethics • selective nonintervention • health policy

Abbreviations: CAPTA—Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act • EMTALA—Emergency Treatment and Labor Act • BAIPA—Born-Alive Infants Protection Act • DHHS—Department of Health and Human Services

Accepted Aug 21, 2008.


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?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 NeoReviewsHome page
J. C. Partridge and B. J. Dickey
Decision-making in Neonatal Intensive Care: Interventions on Behalf of Preterm Infants
NeoReviews, June 1, 2009; 10(6): e270 - e279.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters:

Read all eLetters

A minor clarification needed
Arthur A Strauss
Pediatrics Online, 8 Apr 2009 [Full text]