Campbell D E, Fleischman A R
Division of Neonatology, Children's Hospital at Montefiore, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York 10461, USA.
Am J Perinatol. 2001 May;18(3):117-28. doi: 10.1055/s-2001-14530.
Decision-making about treatments for neonates at the threshold of viability is a complex process that must involve physicians, other health-care professionals, and families. Parents and families bring personal, ideological, cultural, and religious beliefs into their relationship with health-care professionals that have the potential to conflict with professional perceptions of good medical care and the interests of the patient. Neonatologists often find themselves criticized for overtreatment of these extremely premature infants. Yet, from the perspective of the health-care provider, perceived obligations in the face of an uncertain outcome, parental wishes as well as perceptions about legal mandates are often cited as the reasons for the provision of such extraordinary care. Recent reductions in perinatal mortality for premature infants born at the cusp of viability, in conjunction with emerging data on the substantial short- and long-term morbidities experienced by infants born between 23-25 weeks' gestation, have engendered a serious debate about professional and parental obligations in the face of extreme uncertainty. The fundamental questions are who ought to be permitted, under the present circumstances of rapidly evolving technologies and innovative therapies, to decide the best interests of the child, and how to achieve consensus regarding treatment goals when the outcome is uncertain and there are divergent views with regard to the infant's best interests. As survival for these infants increases and morbidity remains a significant likelihood, physicians must be cognizant of the power of their technology to impose undesired burdens on these infants. A reasonable, and reasoned, approach for these vulnerable infants requires collaborative decision making incorporating professional recommendations, with an openness, trust and willingness to work with parents to ascertain the best interests of an individual infant. Understanding of and respect for the differing views of the moral obligations of perinatal specialists and families can aid neonatal professionals in resolving interdisciplinary and physician-family conflicts as well as facilitating resolution of neonatal ethical dilemmas.
对于处于可存活临界状态的新生儿进行治疗决策是一个复杂的过程,必须让医生、其他医疗保健专业人员和家庭参与其中。父母和家庭会将个人、思想、文化和宗教信仰带入他们与医疗保健专业人员的关系中,这些信仰有可能与专业人员对优质医疗护理的认知以及患者的利益发生冲突。新生儿科医生常常因过度治疗这些极度早产的婴儿而受到批评。然而,从医疗保健提供者的角度来看,面对不确定的结果时所感受到的义务、父母的意愿以及对法律规定的认知,常常被引述为提供这种特殊护理的原因。近期,处于可存活临界状态的早产婴儿围产期死亡率有所下降,与此同时,关于孕23至25周出生婴儿所经历的严重短期和长期发病率的新数据不断涌现,这引发了一场关于在极端不确定性面前专业人员和父母义务的严肃辩论。根本问题在于,在当前技术快速发展和创新疗法不断涌现的情况下,应该允许谁来决定孩子的最佳利益,以及当结果不确定且对于婴儿的最佳利益存在不同观点时,如何就治疗目标达成共识。随着这些婴儿存活率的提高且发病可能性仍然很大,医生必须认识到他们的技术可能给这些婴儿带来不必要负担的力量。对于这些脆弱的婴儿,一种合理且经过深思熟虑的方法需要将专业建议纳入协作决策过程,要以开放、信任的态度并愿意与父母合作,以确定个别婴儿的最佳利益。理解并尊重围产期专家和家庭在道德义务上的不同观点,有助于新生儿专业人员解决跨学科以及医生与家庭之间的冲突,同时也有助于解决新生儿伦理困境。