Albersheim Susan
Division of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of British Columbia, BC Women's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Front Pediatr. 2020 Feb 26;8:55. doi: 10.3389/fped.2020.00055. eCollection 2020.
Care of the preterm infant has improved tremendously over the last 60 years, with attendant improvement in outcomes. For the extremely preterm infant, <28 weeks' gestation, concerns related to survival as well as neurodevelopmental impairment, have influenced decision-making to a much larger extent than seen in older children. Possible reasons for conferring a different status on extremely preterm infants include: (1) the belief that the brain is a privileged organ, (2) the degree of medical uncertainty in terms of outcomes, (3) the fact that the family will deal with the psychological, emotional, physical, and financial consequences of treatment decisions, (4) that the extremely preterm looks more like a fetus than a term newborn, (5) the initial lack of relational identity, (6) the fact that extremely preterm infants are technology-dependent, and (7) the timing of decision-making around delivery. Treating extremely preterm infants differently does not hold up to scrutiny. They are owed the same respect as other pediatric patients, in terms of personhood, and we have the same duties to care for them. However, the degree of medical uncertainty and the fact that parents will deal with the consequences of decision-making, highlights the importance of providing a wide band of discretion in parental decision-making authority. Ethical principles considered in decision-making include best interest (historically the sine qua non of pediatric decision-making), a reasonable person standard, the "good enough" parent, and the harm principle, the latter two being more pragmatic. To operationalize these principles, potential models for decision-making are the Zone of Parental Discretion, the Not Unreasonable Standard, and a Shared Decision-Making model. In the final analysis shared decision-making with a wide zone of parental discretion, which is based on the harm principle, would provide fair and equitable decision-making for the extremely preterm infant. However, in the rare circumstance where parents do not wish to embark upon intensive care, against medical recommendations, it would be most helpful to develop local guidelines both for support of health care practitioners and to provide consistency of care for extremely preterm infants.
在过去60年里,对早产儿的护理有了极大改善,随之而来的是治疗结果的改善。对于孕周小于28周的极早产儿,与生存以及神经发育障碍相关的问题,在决策过程中产生的影响比年龄较大儿童的情况要大得多。赋予极早产儿不同地位的可能原因包括:(1)认为大脑是一个特殊器官;(2)治疗结果方面的医学不确定性程度;(3)家庭将应对治疗决策带来的心理、情感、身体和经济后果这一事实;(4)极早产儿看起来更像胎儿而非足月儿新生儿;(5)最初缺乏关系认同;(6)极早产儿依赖技术这一事实;(7)分娩时决策的时机。区别对待极早产儿经不起仔细推敲。就人格而言,他们应得到与其他儿科患者同等的尊重,并且我们有同样的责任照顾他们。然而,医学不确定性程度以及父母将应对决策后果这一事实,凸显了在父母决策权方面给予广泛自由裁量权的重要性。决策中考虑的伦理原则包括最佳利益(历史上一直是儿科决策的必要条件)、合理人标准、“足够好”的父母以及伤害原则,后两者更为务实。为实施这些原则,潜在的决策模式有父母自由裁量区、并非不合理标准和共同决策模式。归根结底,基于伤害原则、给予父母广泛自由裁量权的共同决策,将为极早产儿提供公平公正的决策。然而,在极少数情况下,如果父母违背医学建议不希望进行重症监护,制定当地指南对于支持医护人员以及为极早产儿提供一致的护理将非常有帮助。