a Johns Hopkins University.
Am J Bioeth. 2017 Aug;17(8):4-12. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1340988.
Neonatal intensive care units represent simultaneously one of the great success stories of modern medicine, and one of its most controversial developments. One particularly controversial issue is the resuscitation of extremely preterm infants. Physicians in the United States generally accept that they are required to resuscitate infants born as early as 25 weeks and that it is permissible to resuscitate as early as 22 weeks. In this article, I question the moral pressure to resuscitate by criticizing the idea that resuscitation in this context "saves" a human life. Our radical medical advancements have allowed us to intervene in the life of a human before it makes sense to say that such an intervention "saves" someone; rather, what the physician does in resuscitating and treating an extremely preterm infant is to take over creating it. This matters, I argue, because "rescues" are much more morally urgent than "creations."
新生儿重症监护病房是现代医学的伟大成功故事之一,也是最具争议的发展之一。一个特别有争议的问题是对极早产儿的复苏。美国的医生普遍认为,他们有责任对 25 周甚至更早出生的婴儿进行复苏,并且在 22 周时进行复苏是可以接受的。在本文中,我通过批评在这种情况下复苏“拯救”了一个人类生命的观点,质疑复苏的道德压力。我们激进的医疗进步使我们能够在说这种干预“拯救”某人之前,就在人类的生命中进行干预;相反,医生在对极早产儿进行复苏和治疗时所做的就是接管创造它。我认为,这很重要,因为“拯救”比“创造”更具有道德紧迫性。