Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Professional ethics: the case of neonatology

      research-article
      1 , 2 ,
      Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy
      Springer Netherlands
      Neonatology, NICU, Virtues, Ethics support, Organization, Ethics committees

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Neonatal professionals encounter many ethical challenges especially when it comes to interventions at the limit of viability (weeks 22–25 of gestation). At times, these challenges make the moral dilemmas in neonatology tragic and they require a particular set of intellectual and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues of episteme and phronesis, together with moral virtues of courage, compassion, keeping fidelity to trust, and integrity were highlighted as key virtues of the neonatal professional. Recognition of the role of ethics requires a recognition that answering the obvious question (what shall we do?) does not always suffice. Acknowledging the tragic question (is any of the alternatives open to us free from serious moral wrongdoing) and recognizing the ethical dilemmas, where the lines between right and wrong are blurred, leads to actions taken towards establishing ethics frameworks to support decision-making. In neonatology units, such organizational support can help in allowing the team members to recognize the ethical dilemmas, avoid moral distress, and improve team cohesion and the quality of care provided. Only when the organizational structure allows ethical dilemmas to be recognized, adequate decisions can be made.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preterm birth time trends in Europe: a study of 19 countries

          Objective To investigate time trends in preterm birth in Europe by multiplicity, gestational age, and onset of delivery. Design Analysis of aggregate data from routine sources. Setting Nineteen European countries. Population Live births in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. Methods Annual risk ratios of preterm birth in each country were estimated with year as a continuous variable for all births and by subgroup using log-binomial regression models. Main outcome measures Overall preterm birth rate and rate by multiplicity, gestational age group, and spontaneous versus non-spontaneous (induced or prelabour caesarean section) onset of labour. Results Preterm birth rates rose in most countries, but the magnitude of these increases varied. Rises in the multiple birth rate as well as in the preterm birth rate for multiple births contributed to increases in the overall preterm birth rate. About half of countries experienced no change or decreases in the rates of singleton preterm birth. Where preterm birth rates rose, increases were no more prominent at 35–36 weeks of gestation than at 32–34 weeks of gestation. Variable trends were observed for spontaneous and non-spontaneous preterm births in the 13 countries with mode of onset data; increases were not solely attributed to non-spontaneous preterm births. Conclusions There was a wide variation in preterm birth trends in European countries. Many countries maintained or reduced rates of singleton preterm birth over the past 15 years, challenging a widespread belief that rising rates are the norm. Understanding these cross-country differences could inform strategies for the prevention of preterm birth.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Dilems of moral distress: moral responsibility and nursing practice

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              End-of-life decisions for extremely low-gestational-age infants: why simple rules for complicated decisions should be avoided.

              Interventions for extremely preterm infants bring up many ethical questions. Guidelines for intervention in the "periviable" period generally divide infants using predefined categories, such as "futile," "beneficial," and "gray zone" based on completed 7-day periods of gestation; however, such definitions often differ among countries. The ethical justification for using gestational age as the determination of the category boundaries is rarely discussed. Rational criteria used to make decisions regarding life-sustaining interventions must incorporate other important prognostic information. Precise guidelines based on imprecise data are not rational. Gestational age-based guidelines include an implicit judgment of what is deemed to be an unacceptably poor chance of "intact" survival but fail to explore the determination of acceptability. Furthermore, unclear definitions of severe disability, the difficulty, or impossibility, of accurately predicting outcome in the prenatal or immediate postnatal period make such simplistic formulae inappropriate. Similarly, if guidelines for intervention for the newborn are based on the "qualitative futility" of survival, it should be explicitly stated and justified according to established ethical guidelines. They should discuss whether newborn infants are morally different to older individuals or explain why thresholds recommended for intervention are different to recommendations for those in older persons. The aim should be to establish individualized goals of care with families while recognizing uncertainty, rather than acting on labels derived from gestational age categories alone.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +43 (0) 1 236 81 19-0 , michal.stanak@hta.lbg.ac.at
                Journal
                Med Health Care Philos
                Med Health Care Philos
                Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy
                Springer Netherlands (Dordrecht )
                1386-7423
                1572-8633
                7 September 2018
                7 September 2018
                2019
                : 22
                : 2
                : 231-238
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0414 9599, GRID grid.416150.7, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment, ; Vienna, Austria
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2286 1424, GRID grid.10420.37, Department of Philosophy, , University of Vienna, ; Vienna, Austria
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0313-0997
                Article
                9863
                10.1007/s11019-018-9863-9
                6499733
                30194513
                2bb58fb8-439b-4961-95a3-e518068a6778
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment
                Categories
                Scientific Contribution
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature B.V. 2019

                Medicine
                neonatology,nicu,virtues,ethics support,organization,ethics committees
                Medicine
                neonatology, nicu, virtues, ethics support, organization, ethics committees

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content204

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors227