Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Neonates Are Devalued Compared to Older Patients

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Ethical Dilemmas for Critically Ill Babies

Part of the book series: International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine ((LIME,volume 65))

  • 486 Accesses

Abstract

According to bioethical principles, babies and older patients should be treated according to the same standards. In practice, newborn infants are treated differently in ways which show that they are valued less than older individuals. We provide six specific examples of this differential treatment and analyse the possible consequences of this devaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics. Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) Textbook—6th edition. 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics. ccd web version 22 June 2007. 2007 [cited; Available from: http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/CCD web version 22 June 07 (updated).pdf.

  3. Bellieni CV, Iantorno L, Perrone S, Rodriguez A, Longini M, Capitani S, et al. Even routine painful procedures can be harmful for the newborn. Pain. 2009;147(1–3):128–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Peters JW, Schouw R, Anand KJ, van Dijk M, Duivenvoorden HJ, Tibboel D. Does neonatal surgery lead to increased pain sensitivity in later childhood? Pain. 2005;114(3):444–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carbajal R, Rousset A, Danan C, Coquery S, Nolent P, Ducrocq S, et al. Epidemiology and treatment of painful procedures in neonates in intensive care units. JAMA. 2008;300(1):60–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Losacco V, Cuttini M, Greisen G, Haumont D, Pallas-Alonso CR, Pierrat V, et al. Heel blood sampling in European neonatal intensive care units: compliance with pain management guidelines. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2011;96(1):F65–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Johnston C, Barrington KJ, Taddio A, Carbajal R, Filion F. Pain in Canadian NICUs: have we improved over the past 12 years? Clin J Pain. 2011;27(3):225–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Simons SH, van Dijk M, Anand KS, Roofthooft D, van Lingen RA, Tibboel D. Do we still hurt newborn babies? A prospective study of procedural pain and analgesia in neonates. Arch PediatrAdolesc Med. 2003;157(11):1058–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yilmaz F, Arikan D. The effects of various interventions to newborns on pain and duration of crying. J ClinNurs. 2011;20(7–8):1008–17.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cong X, Ludington-Hoe SM, Walsh S. Randomized crossover trial of kangaroo care to reduce biobehavioral pain responses in preterm infants: a pilot study. Biological research for nursing. 2011; 13(2):204–16.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Harrison D, Bueno M, Yamada J, Adams-Webber T, Stevens B. Analgesic effects of sweet-tasting solutions for infants: current state of equipoise. Pediatrics. 2010;126(5):894–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brady-Fryer B, Wiebe N, Lander JA. Pain relief for neonatal circumcision. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; (4):CD004217.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schiavenato M, Butler-O’Hara M, Scovanner P. Exploring the association between pain intensity and facial display in term newborns. Pain research &management: the journal of the Canadian Pain Society = journal de la societecanadienne pour le traitement de la douleur. 2011; 16(1):10–2.

    Google Scholar 

  14. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. 2008 [cited; Available from: http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html. 2008.

  15. World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines for Community Noise. 2010 [cited; Available from: http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/ComnoiseExec.htm. 2010.

  16. Philbin MK, Robertson A, Hall JW 3rd. Recommended permissible noise criteria for occupied, newly constructed or renovated hospital nurseries. Adv Neonatal Care. 2008;8(5):S11–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Janvier A, Lantos J. Variations of practice in the care of extremely preterm infants. In: Diekema D, Mercurio M, Adam M, editors. Clinical Ethics in Pediatrics, a Case-Based Textbook: Cambridge University Press; 2011. p. 94–100.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Janvier A, Barrington KJ, Aziz K, Lantos J. Ethics ain’t easy: do we need simple rules for complicated ethical decisions? Acta Paediatr. 2008;97(4):402–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dupont-Thibodeau A, Barrington KJ, Farlow B, Janvier A. End-of-life decisions for extremely low-gestational-age infants: why simple rules for complicated decisions should be avoided. SeminPerinatol. 2014;38(1):31–7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Laventhal N, Spelke MB, Andrews B, Larkin LK, Meadow W, Janvier A. Ethics of resuscitation at different stages of life: a survey of perinatal physicians. Pediatrics. 2011;127(5):e1221–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Armstrong K, Ryan CA, Hawkes CP, Janvier A, Dempsey EM. Life and death decisions for incompetent patients: determining best interests–the Irish perspective. Acta Paediatr. 2011;100(4):519–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Janvier A, Leblanc I, Barrington KJ. Nobody likes premies: the relative value of patients’ lives. J Perinatol. 2008;28(12):821–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Janvier A, Leblanc I, Barrington KJ. The best-interest standard is not applied for neonatal resuscitation decisions. Pediatrics. 2008;121(5):963–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hansen TW, Janvier A, Aasland O, Forde R. Ethics, choices, and decisions in acute medicine: a national survey of Norwegian physicians’ attitudes. PediatrCrit Care Med. 2013;14(2):e63–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hagen EM, Therkelsen OB, Førde R, Aasland O, Janvier A, Hansen TW. Challenges in reconciling best interest and parental exercise of autonomy in pediatric life-or-death situations. J Pediatr. 2012;161(1):146–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jefferies AL, Kirpalani HM. Counselling and management for anticipated extremely preterm birth. Paediatrics Child Health. 2012; 17(8):443–6.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kaempf JW, Tomlinson M, Arduza C, Anderson S, Campbell B, Ferguson LA, et al. Medical staff guidelines for periviability pregnancy counseling and medical treatment of extremely premature infants. Pediatrics. 2006;117(1):22–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Weisfeldt ML, Everson-Stewart S, Sitlani C, Rea T, Aufderheide TP, Atkins DL, et al. Ventricular tachyarrhythmias after cardiac arrest in public versus at home. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(4):313–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fontana MS, Farrell C, Gauvin F, Lacroix J, Janvier A. Modes of death in pediatrics: differences in the ethical approach in neonatal and pediatric patients. J Pediatr. 2013;162(6):1107–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rebagliato M, Cuttini M, Broggin L, Berbik I, de Vonderweid U, Hansen G, et al. Neonatal end-of-life decision making: Physicians’ attitudes and relationship with self-reported practices in 10 European countries. JAMA. 2000;284(19):2451–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Marcello KR, Stefano JL, Lampron K, Barrington KJ, Mackley AB, Janvier A. The influence of family characteristics on perinatal decision making. Pediatrics. 2011;127(4):e934–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Doyle LW. Neonatal intensive care at borderline viability—is it worth it? Early Hum Dev. 2004;80(2):103–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lantos JD, Mokalla M, Meadow W. Resource allocation in neonatal and medical ICUs. Epidemiology and rationing at the extremes of life. Am JRespir Crit Care Med. 1997; 156(1):185–9.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Doyle LW, The Victorian Infant Collaborative Study Group. Evaluation of neonatal intensive care for extremely low birth weight infants in Victoria over two decades: II. Efficiency. Pediatrics. 2004;113(3 Pt 1):510–4.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lawn JE, Cousens SN, Darmstadt GL, Bhutta ZA, Martines J, Paul V, et al. 1 year after the lancet neonatal survival series–was the call for action heard? Lancet. 2006;367(9521):1541–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lozano R, Wang H, Foreman KJ, Rajaratnam JK, Naghavi M, Marcus JR, et al. Progress towards Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5 on maternal and child mortality: an updated systematic analysis. Lancet. 2011;378(9797):1139–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Manasyan A, Chomba E, McClure EM, Wright LL, Krzywanski S, Carlo WA. Cost-effectiveness of essential newborn care training in urban first-level facilities. Pediatrics. 2011;127(5):e1176–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Miljeteig I, Johansson KA, Sayeed SA, Norheim OF. End-of-life decisions as bedside rationing. An ethical analysis of life support restrictions in an Indian neonatal unit. J Med Ethics. 2010;36(8):473–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Miljeteig I, Sayeed SA, Jesani A, Johansson KA, Norheim OF. Impact of ethics and economics on end-of-life decisions in an Indian neonatal unit. Pediatrics. 2009;124(2):e322–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Jamison DT, Shahid-Salles SA, Jamison J, Lawn JE, Zupan J. Incorporating Deaths Near the Time of Birth into Estimates of the Global Burden of Disease. In: Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJL, editors. Global Burden of Disease and Risk Factors.Washington (DC); 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Committee on Issues PfNVD, Division of Health Promotion, Disease Prevention IoM. New Vaccine Development: Establishing Priorities: Diseases of Importance in the United States: The National Academies Press; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Johannesson M, Johansson PO. Is the valuation of a QALY gained independent of age? Some empirical evidence. J Health Econ. 1997;16(5):589–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cropper ML, Aydede SK, Portney PR. Preferences for life saving programs: how the public discounts time and age. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1994;8(3):243–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. McMahan J. The ethics of killing: problems at the margins of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Singer P. Practical ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Waring DWR. Medical benefit and the human lottery: an egalitarian approach to patient selection. Berlin: Springer; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Janvier A, Bauer KL, Lantos JD. Are newborns morally different from older children? TheorMedBioeth. 2007;28(5):413–25.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics and Clinical Ethics, University of Montreal, Neonatology and Clinical Ethics, Sainte-Justine Hospital, 3175 Côte-Sainte-Catherine, QC, H3T 1C4, Montréal, Canada

    Annie Janvier

  2. Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Reproduction Medicine, University of Siena, Via Banchi Di Sotto 55, 53100, Siena, Italy

    Carlo Bellieni

  3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Montreal, 2900 Boulevard Edouard-Montpetit, QC, H3T 1J4, Montréal, Canada

    Keith Barrington

Authors
  1. Annie Janvier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Bellieni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keith Barrington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept of. Pediatrics, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Eduard Verhagen

  2. Montreal, Québec, Canada

    Annie Janvier

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Janvier, A., Bellieni, C., Barrington, K. (2016). Neonates Are Devalued Compared to Older Patients. In: Verhagen, E., Janvier, A. (eds) Ethical Dilemmas for Critically Ill Babies. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 65. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7360-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation