Doctor-Parent Disagreement for Preterm Infants Born in the Grey Zone: Do Ethical Frameworks Help?

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Alice Cavolo, Danya F Vears, Gunnar Naulaers, Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé, Lynn Gillam, Chris Gastmans
{"title":"Doctor-Parent Disagreement for Preterm Infants Born in the Grey Zone: Do Ethical Frameworks Help?","authors":"Alice Cavolo, Danya F Vears, Gunnar Naulaers, Bernadette Dierckx de Casterlé, Lynn Gillam, Chris Gastmans","doi":"10.1007/s11673-024-10354-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To examine i) how ethical frameworks can be used in concrete cases of parent-doctors' disagreements for extremely preterm infants born in the grey zone to guide such difficult decision-making; and ii) what challenges stakeholders may encounter in using these frameworks.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We did a case analysis of a concrete case of parent-doctor disagreement in the grey zone using two ethical frameworks: the best interest standard and the zone of parental discretion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both ethical frameworks entailed similar advantages and challenges. They have the potential 1) to facilitate decision-making because they follow a structured method; 2) to clarify the situation because all relevant ethical issues are explored; and 3) to facilitate reaching an agreement because all parties can explain their views. We identified three main challenges. First, how to objectively evaluate the risk of severe disability. Second, parents' interests should be considered but it is not clear to what extent. Third, this is a value-laden situation and different people have different values, meaning that the frameworks are at least partially subjective.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These challenges do not mean that the ethical frameworks are faulty; rather, they reflect the complexity and the sensitivity of cases in the grey zone.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-024-10354-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To examine i) how ethical frameworks can be used in concrete cases of parent-doctors' disagreements for extremely preterm infants born in the grey zone to guide such difficult decision-making; and ii) what challenges stakeholders may encounter in using these frameworks.

Design: We did a case analysis of a concrete case of parent-doctor disagreement in the grey zone using two ethical frameworks: the best interest standard and the zone of parental discretion.

Results: Both ethical frameworks entailed similar advantages and challenges. They have the potential 1) to facilitate decision-making because they follow a structured method; 2) to clarify the situation because all relevant ethical issues are explored; and 3) to facilitate reaching an agreement because all parties can explain their views. We identified three main challenges. First, how to objectively evaluate the risk of severe disability. Second, parents' interests should be considered but it is not clear to what extent. Third, this is a value-laden situation and different people have different values, meaning that the frameworks are at least partially subjective.

Conclusions: These challenges do not mean that the ethical frameworks are faulty; rather, they reflect the complexity and the sensitivity of cases in the grey zone.

Abstract Image

灰色地带早产儿的医生与家长分歧:伦理框架有帮助吗?
目的研究 i) 在灰色地带出生的极早产儿的父母与医生意见分歧的具体案例中,如何使用伦理框架来指导此类困难的决策;以及 ii) 利益相关者在使用这些框架时可能会遇到哪些挑战:设计:我们使用两个伦理框架:最佳利益标准和父母自由裁量权范围,对灰色地带父母与医生意见分歧的具体案例进行了案例分析:结果:两个伦理框架都有类似的优势和挑战。它们有可能:1)促进决策,因为它们遵循结构化的方法;2)澄清情况,因为所有相关的伦理问题都得到了探讨;3)促进达成协议,因为所有各方都可以解释自己的观点。我们确定了三大挑战。第一,如何客观评估严重残疾的风险。第二,应考虑家长的利益,但在多大程度上考虑家长的利益尚不清楚。第三,这是一种充满价值观的情况,不同的人有不同的价值观,这意味着这些框架至少有一部分是主观的:这些挑战并不意味着伦理框架有问题,而是反映了灰色地带案例的复杂性和敏感性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信