16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The zone of parental discretion: An ethical tool for dealing with disagreement between parents and doctors about medical treatment for a child

      Clinical Ethics
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

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

          Parental refusals of medical treatment: the harm principle as threshold for state intervention

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

            The best-interests standard as threshold, ideal, and standard of reasonableness.

            L Kopelman (1997)
            The best-interests standard is a widely used ethical, legal, and social basis for policy and decision-making involving children and other incompetent persons. It is under attack, however, as self-defeating, individualistic, unknowable, vague, dangerous, and open to abuse. The author defends this standard by identifying its employment, first, as a threshold for intervention and judgment (as in child abuse and neglect rulings), second, as an ideal to establish policies or prima facie duties, and, third, as a standard of reasonableness. Criticisms of the best-interests standard are reconsidered after clarifying these different meanings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Resuscitation in the "gray zone" of viability: determining physician preferences and predicting infant outcomes.

              We assessed physician preferences and physician prognostic abilities regarding delivery room management of exceedingly low birth weight/short gestation infants. We surveyed US neonatologists to assess their behavior in the delivery room when confronted with infants with gestational ages of 22 to 26 weeks. We identified 102 infants in our NICU with birth weights/gestational ages of 400 g/23 weeks to 750 g/26 weeks, whose follow-up care was ensured because of their participation in ongoing clinical trials. We determined 4 proxy measures for "how the infant looked" in the delivery room (Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes and heart rates at 1 and 5 minutes) and assessed the predictive value of each marker for subsequent death or neurologic morbidity. For infants with birth weights of 600 g and gestational ages of 25 weeks, > 90% of neonatologists considered resuscitation obligatory. For infants with birth weights of 500 to 600 g and gestational ages of 23 to 24 weeks, only one third of neonatologists responded that parental preference would determine whether they resuscitated the infant in the delivery room. The majority wanted "to see what the infant looked like." For 102 infants with birth weights of < or = 750 g, Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes and heart rates at 1 and 5 minutes were neither sensitive nor predictive for death before discharge, survival with a neurologic abnormality, or intact neurologic survival. The "gray zone" for delivery room resuscitation seems to be between 500 and 600 g and 23 and 24 weeks. For infants born in that zone, neonatologists' reliance on accurate prediction of death or morbidity in the delivery room may be misplaced.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clinical Ethics
                Clinical Ethics
                SAGE Publications
                1477-7509
                1758-101X
                December 18 2015
                December 18 2015
                : 11
                : 1
                : 1-8
                Article
                10.1177/1477750915622033
                44d221da-bac1-4c18-a953-5d22e1e7ea11
                © 2015
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article