Postponed Withholding: Balanced Decision-Making at the Margins of Viability

39Citations
Citations of this article
59Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Advances in neonatology have led to improved survival for periviable infants. Immaturity still carries a high risk of short- and long-term harms, and uncertainty turns provision of life support into an ethical dilemma. Shared decision-making with parents has gained ground. However, the need to start immediate life support and the ensuing difficulty of withdrawing treatment stands in tension with the possibility of a fair decision-making process. Both the parental “instinct of saving” and “withdrawal resistance” involved can preclude shared decision-making. To help health care personnel and empower parents, we propose a novel approach labeled “postponed withholding.” In the absence of a prenatal advance directive, life support is started at birth, followed by planned redirection to palliative care after one week, unless parents, after a thorough counseling process, actively ask for continued life support. Despite the emotional challenges, this approach can facilitate ethically balanced decision-making processes in the gray zone.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Syltern, J., Ursin, L., Solberg, B., & Støen, R. (2022). Postponed Withholding: Balanced Decision-Making at the Margins of Viability. American Journal of Bioethics, 22(11), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2021.1925777

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free