Syltern Janicke
Department of Neonatology, St. Olavs Hospital University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Front Pediatr. 2024 Apr 24;12:1394077. doi: 10.3389/fped.2024.1394077. eCollection 2024.
Advances in neonatal medicine have allowed us to rescue extremely preterm infants. However, both long-term vulnerability and the burden of treatment in the neonatal period increase with decreasing gestational age. This raises questions about the justification of life support when a baby is born at the border of viability, and has led to a so-called "grey zone", where many professionals are unsure whether provision of life support is in the child's best interest. Despite cultural, political and economic similarities, the Scandinavian countries differ in their approach to periviable infants, as seen in their respective national guidelines and practices. In Sweden, guidelines and practice are more rescue-focused at the lower end of the border of viability, Danish guidelines emphasizes the need to involve parental views in the decision-making process, whereas Norway appears to be somewhere in between. In this paper, I will give an overview of national consensus documents and practices in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, and reflect on the ethical justification for the different approaches.
新生儿医学的进步使我们能够挽救极早产儿。然而,随着胎龄的降低,新生儿期的长期脆弱性和治疗负担都会增加。这就引发了关于在婴儿出生于可存活边缘时进行生命支持是否合理的问题,并导致了一个所谓的“灰色地带”,许多专业人员不确定提供生命支持是否符合儿童的最大利益。尽管斯堪的纳维亚国家在文化、政治和经济方面有相似之处,但从各自的国家指南和实践中可以看出,它们对接近可存活婴儿的处理方式有所不同。在瑞典,指南和实践在可存活边缘的下限更侧重于抢救,丹麦的指南强调在决策过程中需要考虑父母的意见,而挪威的做法似乎介于两者之间。在本文中,我将概述挪威、瑞典和丹麦的国家共识文件及实践,并思考不同做法的伦理依据。