Periviable birth: A review of ethical considerations.

IF 0.3 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Hippokratia Pub Date : 2021-01-01
E Gkiougki, I Chatziioannidis, A Pouliakis, N Iacovidou
{"title":"Periviable birth: A review of ethical considerations.","authors":"E Gkiougki, I Chatziioannidis, A Pouliakis, N Iacovidou","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Advances in perinatology and medical technology have pushed the limits of viability to unprecedented extremes, leading to a growing population of NICU \"graduates\" with a wide range of health issues. Although survival rates from 22 weeks of gestation onwards have improved over the last 30 years, the incidence of disabilities remains the same. Providing intensive care to a high-risk population with significant mortality and morbidity raises the fundamental conflict between sanctity and quality of life. Potential severe handicap and need for frequent tertiary care inevitably impact the whole family unit and may outweigh the benefit of survival. The aim of this study is to explore and summarize the ethical considerations in neonatal care concerning perivable birth.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eligible studies published on PubMed were included after a systematic search using the PICO methodology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-eight studies were systematically reviewed regarding guidelines, withholding or withdrawing treatment, parental involvement, and principles applied in marginal viability. As periviable birth raises an array of complex ethical and legal concerns, strict guidelines are challenging to implement.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Active life-sustaining interventions in neonatology should be balanced against the risk of putting infants through painful and futile procedures and survival with severe sequelae. More evidence is needed on better prediction of long-term outcomes in situations of imminent preterm delivery, while good collaboration between the therapeutic team and the parents for life-and-death decision-making is of utmost importance. HIPPOKRATIA 2021, 25 (1):1-7.</p>","PeriodicalId":50405,"journal":{"name":"Hippokratia","volume":"25 1","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8877922/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hippokratia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Advances in perinatology and medical technology have pushed the limits of viability to unprecedented extremes, leading to a growing population of NICU "graduates" with a wide range of health issues. Although survival rates from 22 weeks of gestation onwards have improved over the last 30 years, the incidence of disabilities remains the same. Providing intensive care to a high-risk population with significant mortality and morbidity raises the fundamental conflict between sanctity and quality of life. Potential severe handicap and need for frequent tertiary care inevitably impact the whole family unit and may outweigh the benefit of survival. The aim of this study is to explore and summarize the ethical considerations in neonatal care concerning perivable birth.

Methods: Eligible studies published on PubMed were included after a systematic search using the PICO methodology.

Results: Forty-eight studies were systematically reviewed regarding guidelines, withholding or withdrawing treatment, parental involvement, and principles applied in marginal viability. As periviable birth raises an array of complex ethical and legal concerns, strict guidelines are challenging to implement.

Conclusions: Active life-sustaining interventions in neonatology should be balanced against the risk of putting infants through painful and futile procedures and survival with severe sequelae. More evidence is needed on better prediction of long-term outcomes in situations of imminent preterm delivery, while good collaboration between the therapeutic team and the parents for life-and-death decision-making is of utmost importance. HIPPOKRATIA 2021, 25 (1):1-7.

围产期:伦理考虑因素综述。
背景:围产医学和医疗技术的进步将存活率的极限推向了前所未有的极端,导致新生儿重症监护室的 "毕业生 "中出现了越来越多的各种健康问题。在过去的 30 年中,虽然从妊娠 22 周开始的存活率有所提高,但残疾的发生率却保持不变。为死亡率和发病率都很高的高危人群提供重症监护,引发了神圣性与生活质量之间的根本冲突。潜在的严重残疾和频繁接受三级护理的需求不可避免地会对整个家庭造成影响,并可能超过生存带来的益处。本研究旨在探讨和总结新生儿护理中有关可围产期的伦理考虑因素:方法:采用 PICO 方法对发表在 PubMed 上的符合条件的研究进行系统检索:结果:系统回顾了 48 项研究,内容涉及指南、暂停或撤消治疗、父母参与以及边缘存活的应用原则。由于可存活分娩会引发一系列复杂的伦理和法律问题,因此实施严格的指导原则具有挑战性:结论:新生儿科中积极的生命维持干预措施应与让婴儿经历痛苦和无用的程序以及带着严重后遗症存活的风险相平衡。我们需要更多证据来更好地预测早产儿濒临分娩时的长期预后,而治疗团队与父母之间的良好合作对于生死决策至关重要。Hippokratia 2021,25 (1):1-7。
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
Hippokratia
Hippokratia MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Hippokratia journal is a quarterly issued, open access, peer reviewed, general medical journal, published in Thessaloniki, Greece. It is a forum for all medical specialties. The journal is published continuously since 1997, its official language is English and all submitted manuscripts undergo peer review by two independent reviewers, assigned by the Editor (double blinded review process). Hippokratia journal is managed by its Editorial Board and has an International Advisory Committee and over 500 expert Reviewers covering all medical specialties and additionally Technical Reviewers, Statisticians, Image processing Experts and a journal Secretary. The Society “Friends of Hippokratia Journal” has the financial management of both the printed and electronic edition of the journal.
×
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