You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Ethics of resuscitation for extremely premature infants: a systematic review of argument-based literature
  1. Alice Cavolo1,
  2. Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé2,
  3. Gunnar Naulaers3,
  4. Chris Gastmans1
  1. 1 Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven Biomedical Sciences Group, Leuven, Belgium
  2. 2 Academic Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven Biomedical Sciences Group, Leuven, Belgium
  3. 3 Pregnancy, Fetus and Newborn, Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  1. Correspondence to Alice Cavolo, Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, KU Leuven, Leuven 3000, Belgium; alice.cavolo{at}kuleuven.be

Abstract

Objective To present (1) the ethical concepts related to the debate on resuscitation of extremely premature infants (EPIs) as they are described in the ethical literature; and (2) the ethical arguments based on these concepts.

Design We conducted a systematic review of the ethical literature. We selected articles based on the following predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria: (1) English language articles (2) presenting fully elaborated ethical arguments (3) on resuscitation (4) of EPIs, that is, infants born before 28 weeks of gestation.

Analysis After repeated reading of articles, we developed individual summaries, conceptual schemes and an overall conceptual scheme. Ethical arguments and concepts were identified and analysed.

Results Forty articles were included out of 4709 screened. Personhood, best interest, autonomy and justice were concepts grounding the various arguments. Regarding these concepts, included authors agreed that the best interest principle should guide resuscitation decisions, whereas justice seemed the least important concept. The arguments addressed two questions: Should we resuscitate EPIs? Who should decide? Included authors agreed that not all EPIs should be resuscitated but disagreed on what criteria should ground this decision. Overall, included authors agreed that both parents and physicians should contribute to the decision.

Conclusions The included publications suggest that while the best interest is the main concept guiding resuscitation decisions, justice is the least important. The included authors also agree that both parents and physicians should be actively involved in resuscitation decisions for EPIs. However, our results suggest that parents’ decision should be over-ridden when in contrast with the EPI’s best interest.

  • clinical ethics
  • ethics
  • neonatology
  • newborns and minors

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106102

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors AC contributed to the study design, screened the bibliographic search results, reviewed all included articles, drafted the initial manuscript, and reviewed and revised the manuscript. CG contributed to the study design, screened search results, reviewed all included articles, reviewed the manuscript and provided mentorship. BDC contributed to the study design, reviewed the manuscript and provided mentorship. GN critically reviewed the manuscript for important clinical intellectual content and provided mentorship.

    • Funding All phases of this study were supported by a grant from Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO; Dutch: Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen), Belgium (grant number 1144319N to AC).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    Other content recommended for you