Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-md8df Total loading time: 0.581 Render date: 2021-12-07T16:42:29.110Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

49 - Appropriateness of intensive care application

from Section 6 - Assessing outcome of the brain-injured infant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2010

David K. Stevenson
Stanford University School of Medicine, California
William E. Benitz
Stanford University School of Medicine, California
Philip Sunshine
Stanford University School of Medicine, California
Susan R. Hintz
Stanford University School of Medicine, California
Maurice L. Druzin
Stanford University School of Medicine, California
Get access



Ethical questions in medicine revolve around three core topics: what needs to be decided, on what basis, and by whom. These matters are not unique to the perinatal period, nor to patients with brain injury, but both of those circumstances may have ethical implications in the decision-making process, and in combination they raise questions that are unique. Because these situations touch so many critical aspects of human existence – birth, death, personhood, parenthood, etc. – it is not surprising that ethical matters related to the perinatal period have garnered a disproportionate amount of attention in the public discourses on medical ethics, nor that brain integrity lies at the core of so many of the contentious cases. The philosophical underpinnings of medical ethics have been reviewed exhaustively in many other venues, so this discussion will focus on aspects that are unique to or uniquely framed by brain injury or dysfunction in the perinatal period.

What is to be decided?

In the lay literature, ethical dilemmas are often framed as “life-or-death” decisions, with the implication that death or survival are options to be freely selected by patients, family members, or care providers, and that the ultimate outcome is within their control. In reality, that is rarely the case. In the case of a patient whose vital signs are rapidly failing despite full application of intensive care measures, this fact is obvious and there is no (or at most a very short-lived) ethical problem.

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

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.)


In the matter of baby K. In: LEXIS, US App. 4th Cir., 1994.
Greenhouse, L. Court order to treat baby with partial brain prompts debate on costs and ethics. New York Times 1994 February 20; Sect. 20.Google Scholar
Kolata, G. Battle over a baby's future raises hard ethical issues. New York Times 1994 December 27; Sect. A1.Google Scholar
Hintz, SR, Kendrick, , Stoll, BJ, et al. Neurodevelopmental and growth outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants after necrotizing enterocolitis. Pediatrics 2005; 115: 696–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cirak, B, Wang, P, Avellino, AM. Implications of a neurosurgical intervention in a patient with a surgically repaired hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Pediatr Neurosurg 2007; 43: 488–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabbutt, S, Nord, AS, Jarvik, GP, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes after staged palliation for hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Pediatrics 2008; 121: 476–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, D, Davis, S, Cotman, K, et al. Feeding difficulties and growth delay in children with hypoplastic left heart syndrome versus d-transposition of the great arteries. Pediatr Cardiol 2008; 29: 328–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schultz, AH, Wernovsky, G. Late outcomes in patients with surgically treated congenital heart disease. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu 2005: 145–56.Google Scholar
Kon, AA, Ackerson, L, Lo, B. How pediatricians counsel parents when no “best-choice” management exists: lessons to be learned from hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004; 158: 436–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eicher, DJ, Wagner, CL, Katikaneni, LP, et al. Moderate hypothermia in neonatal encephalopathy: efficacy outcomes. Pediatr Neurol 2005; 32: 11–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gluckman, PD, Wyatt, JS, Azzopardi, D, et al. Selective head cooling with mild systemic hypothermia after neonatal encephalopathy: multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2005; 365: 663–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shankaran, S, Laptook, AR, Ehrenkranz, RA, et al. Whole-body hypothermia for neonates with hypoxic–ischemic encephalopathy. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1574–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitelaw, A. Death as an option in neonatal intensive care. Lancet 1986; 2: 328–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isaacs, D. Brain death. J Paediatr Child Health 2003; 39: 224–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Brain Death in Children. Guidelines for the determination of brain death in children. Pediatrics 1987; 80: 298–300.
Volpe, JJ. Brain death determination in the newborn. Pediatrics 1987; 80: 293–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Ashwal, S. Brain death in the newborn: current perspectives. Clin Perinatol 1997; 24: 859–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stahlman, M. Withholding and withdrawing therapy and actively hastening death. In Goldworth, A, Silverman, W, Stevenson, DK, et al., eds., Ethics and Perinatology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995: 162–71.Google Scholar
Moseley, KL, Silveira, MJ, Goold, SD. Futility in evolution. Clin Geriatr Med 2005; 21: 211–22, x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morreim, EH. Profoundly diminished life: the casualties of coercion. Hastings Cent Rep 1994; 24: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sirico, RA. An unjust sacrifice. New York Times 2000 September 28; Sect. A31.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. Life's Dominion: an Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993.Google Scholar
Wallis, C. The stormy legacy of Baby Doe. Time 1983 September 26.Google ScholarPubMed
Stevenson, DK, Ariagno, RL, Kutner, JS, et al. The “Baby Doe” rule. JAMA 1986; 255: 1909–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greely, HT. Baby Doe and beyond: the past and future of government regulations in the United States. In Goldworth, A, Silverman, W, Stevenson, DK, et al., eds., Ethics and Perinatology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995: 296–306.Google Scholar
Capron, AM. In re Helga Wanglie. Hastings Cent Rep 1991; 21: 26–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,League of Nations. Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924, adopted September 26, 1924. League of Nations OJ 1924; Spec. Supp. 21: 43.
United Nations. Declaration of the Rights of the Child, proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 1386 (XIV) of 20 November 1959.
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Behavioral Research. Deciding to Forgo Life-Sustaining Treatment. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1983.
,American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. Treatment of critically ill newborns. Pediatrics 1983; 72: 565–6.
Catlin, AJ, Stevenson, DK. Physicians' neonatal resuscitation of extremely low-birth-weight preterm infants. Image J Nurs Sch 1999; 31: 269–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saigal, S, Stoskopf, B, Pinelli, J, et al. Self-perceived health-related quality of life of former extremely low birth weight infants at young adulthood. Pediatrics 2006; 118: 1140–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevenson, DK, Young, EWD. Introduction: a thematic overview. In Goldworth, A, Silverman, W, Stevenson, DK, et al., eds., Ethics and Perinatology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995: 6.Google Scholar
,American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Noninitiation or withdrawal of intensive care for high-risk newborns. Pediatrics 2007; 119: 401–3.
Hardwig, J. What about the family?Hastings Cent Rep 1990; 20: 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blustein, J. The family in medical decision making. Hastings Cent Rep 1993; 23: 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasouliotis, SJ, Schenker, JG. Maternal–fetal conflict. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000; 89: 101–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, LJ, Milliken, N. Compelled medical treatment of pregnant women: life, liberty, and law in conflict. JAMA 1988; 259: 1060–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, D. Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1888.Google Scholar
Harris, J. What is the good of health care?Bioethics 1996; 10: 269–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meadow, W, Lantos, JD, Mokalla, M, et al. Distributive justice across generations: epidemiology of ICU care for the very young and the very old. Clin Perinatol 1996; 23: 597–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, DM, Meara, E. The technology of birth: is it worth it?Forum Health Econ Policy 2000; 3: Article 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antommaria, AM. “Who should survive?: one of the choices on our conscience”: mental retardation and the history of contemporary bioethics. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2006; 16: 205–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, JA. Involuntary euthanasia of defective newborns: a legal analysis. Stanford Law Review 1975; 27: 213–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Who Should Survive? One of the Choices on Our Conscience. [Film]. Joseph, P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation, distributor, 1971.
McGehan, F. Hopkins was wrong to let infant die in '63 case, symposium decides. Baltimore Sun 1971 October 17; Sect. 20, 16.
Todres, ID, Krane, D, Howell, MC, et al. Pediatricians' attitudes affecting decision-making in defective newborns. Pediatrics 1977; 60: 197–201.Google ScholarPubMed
Shaw, A, Randolph, JG, Manard, B. Ethical issues in pediatric surgery: a national survey of pediatricians and pediatric surgeons. Pediatrics 1977; 60: 588–99.Google ScholarPubMed
Furrow, BR. Baby, K: a legal and ethical viewpoint. ASMLE Briefings 1994 (10): 1, 5.Google Scholar
Moreno, S. Case puts Texas futile-treatment law under a microscope. Washington Post 2007 April 11.Google Scholar
,Texas Futile Care Law. Texas Health & Safety Code. 1999: Chapter 166, Section 46.
Truog, RD. Tackling medical futility in Texas. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fine, RL, Mayo, TW. Resolution of futility by due process: early experience with the Texas Advance Directives Act. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138: 743–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hackler, JC, Hiller, FC. Family consent to orders not resuscitate: reconsidering hospital policy. JAMA 1990; 264: 1281–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhoden, NK. Litigating life and death. Harv Law Rev 1988; 102: 375–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coar, T. The Aphorisms of Hippocrates. London: Valpy, 1882.Google Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure 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 sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ 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

Send book to Dropbox

To send 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 sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Send book to Google Drive

To send 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 sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats