Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T04:21:15.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 48 - Neonatal Neuroethics

from Section 4 - Specific Conditions Associated with Fetal and Neonatal Brain Injury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2017

By
Alyssa M. Burgart  and
David Magnus
Edited by
David K. Stevenson ,
William E. Benitz ,
Philip Sunshine ,
Susan R. Hintz  and
Maurice L. Druzin
David K. Stevenson
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
William E. Benitz
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Philip Sunshine
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Susan R. Hintz
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Maurice L. Druzin
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Fetal and Neonatal Brain Injury , pp. 773 - 784
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Placencia, FX, McCullough, LB. The history of ethical decision making in neonatal intensive care. J Intensive Care Med 2011; 26(6): 368–84.Google Scholar
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1983, Pub. L. No. 93–112, 87 Stat. 355. 29 USC § 701. Available at www.usbr.gov/cro/pdfsplus/rehabact.pdf (accessed June 8, 2015).Google Scholar
Child Welfare Information Gateway. What is child abuse and neglect? Recognizing the signs and symptoms, 2015. Available at www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/whatiscan.pdf (accessed July 8, 2015).Google Scholar
Elsasser, G. Reagan loses Baby Doe case. Chicago Tribune, June 1986. Available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986–06-10/news/8602110374_1_handicapped-infant-rehabilitation-act (accessed July 8, 2015).Google Scholar
USC, Title 42 – The Public Health and Welfare, Chapter 67 – Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform. Available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title42/html/USCODE-2010-title42-chap67.htm (accessed July 8, 2015).Google Scholar
Kopelman, L. Rejecting the Baby Doe rules and defending a “negative” analysis of the best interests standard. J Med Philos 2005; 30(4): 331–52.Google Scholar
In re: Baby “K,” 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 91, 1994.Google Scholar
Brown, K. In the matter of Baby K: the Fourth Circuit stretches EMTALA even further. Mercer Law Rev 1996; 47: 1173–79.Google Scholar
Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 166, Section 46, 1999. Available at www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.166.htm (accessed August 5, 2015).Google Scholar
Bassel, A. Order at the end of life: establishing a clear and fair mechanism for the resolution of futility disputes. Vanderbilt Law Rev Notes 2010; 63(2). Available at www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/2010/03/order-at-the-end-of-life-establishing-a-clear-and-fair-mechanism-for-the-resolution-of-futility-disputes/ (accessed August 5, 2015).Google Scholar
California Probate Code, Sections 4735 and 4736.Google Scholar
Chabot, S., H.R. 2175 – 107th Congress (2001–2): Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. Available at www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2175/text (accessed July 8, 2015).Google Scholar
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Memo 05–26: Interaction of the EMTALA and the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, April 2005. Available at www.cms.gov/Medicare/Provider-Enrollment-and-Certification/SurveyCertificationGenInfo/Downloads/SCletter05-26.pdf.Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics Neonatal Resuscitation Program Steering Committee. Resources: Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107–207, January 2003. Available at www2.aap.org/nrp/inst_resources-resources-bornalive_act.html (accessed August 5, 2015).Google Scholar
A definition of irreversible coma. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death. JAMA 1968; 205(6): 337–40.Google Scholar
Debolt, D. Jahi McMath: family breaks silence on brain-dead girl’s condition. San Jose Mercury News, October 2014. Available at www.mercurynews.com/ci_26659381/jahi-mcmath-family-breaks-silence-brain-dead-girls (accessed August 5, 2015).Google Scholar
Bernat, JL. Whither brain death? Am J Bioethics 2014; 14(8).Google Scholar
Truog, RD, Miller, FG. Changing the conversation about brain death. Am J Bioethics 2014; 14(8).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnus, D, Wilfond, B, Caplan, AL., Perspective: Accepting Brain Death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370(10): 891–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, J, Fanaroff, J, Andrews, B, et al. Resuscitation in the “gray zone” of viability: determining physician preferences and predicting infant outcomes. Pediatrics 2007; 120(3): 519–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Pietro, NC, Whiteley, L, Mizgalewicz, A, Illes, J. Treatments for neurodevelopmental disorders: evidence, advocacy, and the Internet. J Autism Dev Disord 2013; 43(1): 122–33.Google Scholar
Vavasseur, C, Foran, A, Murphy, JFA. Consensus statements on the borderlands of neonatal viability: from uncertainty to grey areas. Ir Med J 2007; 100(8): 561–4.Google Scholar
Verhagen, AAE, Janvier, A, Leuthner, SR, et al. Categorizing neonatal deaths: a cross-cultural study in the United States, Canada, and The Netherlands. J Pediatr 2010; 156(1): 33–7.Google Scholar
Weiner, J, Sharma, J, Lantos, J, Kilbride, H. How infants die in the neonatal intensive care unit: trends from 1999 through 2008. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011; 165(7): 630–4.Google Scholar
Kuschel, CA, Kent, A. Improved neonatal survival and outcomes at borderline viability brings increasing ethical dilemmas. J Paediatr Child Health 2011; 47(9): 585–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, CE, Cheong, JLY, Gabra Fam, L, et al. Moderate and late preterm infants exhibit widespread brain white matter microstructure alterations at term-equivalent age relative to term-born controls. Brain Imaging Behav 2015; 10(1): 41–9.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G, Gaissmaier, W, Kurz-Milcke, E, et al. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest 2007; 8(2): 53–96.Google Scholar
Singh, J, Fanaroff, J, Andrews, B, et al. Resuscitation in the “gray zone” of viability: determining physician preferences and predicting infant outcomes. Pediatrics 2007; 120(3): 519–26.Google Scholar
Tennant, PWG, Pearce, MS, Bythell, M, Rankin, J. 20-year survival of children born with congenital anomalies: a population-based study. Lancet 2010; 375(9715): 649–56.Google Scholar
Wang, Y, Hu, J, Druschel, CM, Kirby, RS. Twenty-five-year survival of children with birth defects in New York State: a population-based study. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 2011; 91(12): 995–1003.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, DJC, Thiele, P, Watkins, A, De Crespigny, L. Fatally flawed? A review and ethical analysis of lethal congenital malformations. BJOG 2012; 119(11): 1302–8.Google Scholar
Di Pietro, NC, Whiteley, L, Mizgalewicz, A, Illes, J. Treatments for neurodevelopmental disorders: evidence, advocacy, and the Internet. J Autism Dev Disord 2013; 43(1): 122–33.Google Scholar
Akins, RS, Angkustsiri, K, Hansen, RL. Complementary and alternative medicine in autism: an evidence-based approach to negotiating safe and efficacious interventions with families. Neurother J Am Soc Exp Neurother 2010; 7(3): 307–19.Google Scholar
Bell, E, Wallace, T, Chouinard, I, et al. Responding to requests of families for unproven interventions in neurodevelopmental disorders: hyperbaric oxygen “treatment” and stem cell “therapy” in cerebral palsy. Dev Disabil Res Rev 2011; 17(1): 19–26.Google Scholar
Janvier, A, Lantos, J, POST Investigators. Ethics and etiquette in neonatal intensive care. JAMA Pediatr 2014; 168(9): 857–8.Google Scholar
Ali, Z. Selection criteria in the NICU: who should get effective critical care? Indian J Med Ethics 2009; 6(2): 103–4.Google Scholar
Verhagen, AAE, Janvier, A, Leuthner, SR, et al. Categorizing neonatal deaths: a cross-cultural study in the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands. J Pediatr 2010; 156(1): 33–7.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, DJ, Fitzsimons, JJ, Dargaville, PA, et al. Death in the neonatal intensive care unit: changing patterns of end of life care over two decades. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2006; 91(4): F268–71.Google Scholar
Brecht, M, Wilkinson, DJC. The outcome of treatment limitation discussions in newborns with brain injury. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2015; 100(2): F155–60.Google Scholar
Yu, VYH. Is neonatal intensive care justified in all preterm infants? Croat Med J. 2005; 46(5): 744–50.Google Scholar
Swamy, R, Mohapatra, S, Bythell, M, Embleton, ND. Survival in infants live born at less than 24 weeks’ gestation: the hidden morbidity of non-survivors. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2010; 95(4): F293–4.Google Scholar
Char, D, Cho, M, Magnus, D. Whole genome sequencing in critically ill children. Lancet Respir Med 2015; 3(4): 264–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Richards, C, Crawley, L, Magnus, D. Use of neurodevelopmental delay in pediatric solid organ transplant listing decisions: inconsistencies in standards across major pediatric transplant centers. Pediatr Transplant 2009; 13(7): 843–50.Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics Infant Bioethics Task Force and Consultants. Guidelines for infant bioethics committees. Pediatrics 1984; 74(2): 306–10.Google Scholar
McGee, G, Spanogle, J, Caplan, A, et al. Successes and failures of hospital ethics committees: a national survey of ethics committee chairs. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2002; 11(1): 87–93.Google Scholar
Molloy, J, Evans, M, Coughlin, K. Moral distress in the resuscitation of extremely premature infants. Nurs Ethics 2015; 22(1): 52–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hack, M, Horbar, JD, Malloy, MH, et al. Very low birth weight outcomes of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Network. Pediatrics 1991; 87(5): 587–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
What is Vermont Oxford Network? Available at https://public.vtoxford.org/about-us/ (accessed August 4, 2015))Google Scholar
Malkar, MB, Gardner, WP, Mandy, GT, et al. Respiratory severity score on day of life 30 is predictive of mortality and the length of mechanical ventilation in premature infants with protracted ventilation. Pediatr Pulmonol 2015; 50(4): 363–9.Google Scholar
Bassler, D, Stoll, BJ, Schmidt, B, et al. Using a count of neonatal morbidities to predict poor outcome in extremely low birth weight infants: added role of neonatal infection. Pediatrics 2009; 123(1): 313–18.Google Scholar
Hoffman, L, Bann, C, Higgins, R, et al. Developmental outcomes of extremely preterm infants born to adolescent mothers. Pediatrics 2015; 135(6): 1082–92.Google Scholar
Magnus, D. The SUPPORT controversy and the debate over research within the standard of care. Am J Bioeth 2013; 13(12): 1–2Google Scholar
Tin, W, Milligan, D, Pennefather, P, Hey, E. Pulse oximetry, severe retinopathy, and outcome at one year in babies of less than 28 weeks gestation. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2001; 84(2): F106–10.Google Scholar
Anderson, CG, Benitz, WE, Madan, A. Retinopathy of prematurity and pulse oximetry: a national survey of recent practices. J Perinatol 2004; 24(3): 164–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnus, D, Caplan, AL. Perspective: risk, consent, and SUPPORT. N Engl J Med 2013; 368(20): 1864–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drazen, JM, et al. Support for SUPPORT. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1469–70.Google Scholar
Wilfond, B, Magnus, D, et al. Letter: The OHRP and SUPPORT. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: e36.Google Scholar
Wilfond, B, Magnus, D, et al. Letter: “The OHRP and SUPPORT.” N Engl J Med. 2013; 368: e36Google Scholar
Macklin, R, Shepherd, L, Dreger, A. The OHRP and SUPPORT: another view. N Engl J Med 2013; 369(2):e3.Google Scholar
Lantos, JD. Vindication for SUPPORT. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1393–5.Google Scholar
Magnus, D, Wilfond, B. Research on medical practices and the ethics of disclosure. Pediatrics 2015; 135(2): 208–10.Google Scholar
Cho, MK, Magnus, D, Constantine, M, et al. Attitudes toward risk and informed consent for research on medical practices: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162(10): 690–6.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×