Pierucci Robin
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Bronson Children's Hospital, Kalamazoo, MI, USA.
Linacre Q. 2019 May;86(2-3):172-175. doi: 10.1177/0024363919856819. Epub 2019 Jun 24.
In the September article "Should Parents of Neonates with Bleak Prognosis Be Encouraged to Opt for Another Child with Better Odds? On the Notion of Moral Replaceability," (Tännsjö 2018, S552-57), the author contrasts how three different moral philosophies can be applied to medical decision-making for periviable babies. Unfortunately, the sanctity of life doctrine is critically misrepresented. Unlike what is stated in the article, this doctrine is not a framework that unconditionally advises the resuscitation of all extremely premature babies at all costs under any circumstances. Instead, by considering the degree of usefulness and burdensomeness of medical treatments, the sanctity of life doctrine exercises a prudent stewardship over finite resources while simultaneously honoring the inherent dignity in every human being.
在9月发表的《是否应鼓励预后不佳的新生儿父母选择孕育另一个有更好生存几率的孩子？论道德可替换性的概念》（坦恩斯约，2018年，第S552 - 57页）一文中，作者对比了三种不同的道德哲学如何应用于可存活婴儿的医疗决策。不幸的是，生命神圣教义被严重歪曲了。与文章中所述不同，该教义并非一个在任何情况下都无条件建议不惜一切代价对所有极早产儿进行复苏的框架。相反，通过考虑医疗治疗的有用程度和负担程度，生命神圣教义在合理管理有限资源的同时，尊重每个人与生俱来的尊严。
