This paper examines the few, but important legal and coronial cases concerning withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment from severely disabled or critically impaired infants in Australia. Although sparse in number, the judgements should influence common clinical practices based on assessment of “best interests” but these have not yet been adopted. In particular, although courts have discounted assessment of “quality of life” as a legitimate component of determination of “best interests,” this remains a prominent component of clinical guidelines. In addition, this paper highlights the lack of uniform clinical guidelines available to medical professionals and parents in Australia when making end-of-life decisions for severely ill infants. Thus, it is argued here that there is a need for an overarching prescriptive uniform framework or set of guidelines in end-of-life decision-making for impaired infants. This would encourage greater transparency, consistency, and some degree of objectivity in an area that often appears subjective.
End-of-life care Withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment End-of-life treatment for infants “Best interests” Clinical guidelines Medical ethics
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Competing Interests and Funding
There are no competing interests or funding support for this paper.
Barr, P. 2007. Relationships of neonatologists’ end-of-life decisions to their personal fear of death. Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition 92(2): 104–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boneh, A., S. Allan, D. Mendelson, M. Spriggs, L.H. Gillam, and S.H. Korman. 2008. Clinical, ethical and legal considerations in the treatment of newborns with non-ketotic hyperglycaemia. Molecular Genetics and Metabolism 94(2): 143–147.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Costeloe, K., E. Hennessy, A.T. Gibson, N. Marlow, and A.R. Wilkinson. 2000. The EPICure study: Outcomes to discharge from hospital for infants born at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics 106(4): 659–671.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Costeloe, K.L., E.M. Hennessy, S. Haider, F. Stacey, N. Marlow, and E.S. Draper. 2012. Short term outcomes after extreme preterm birth in England: Comparison of two birth cohorts in 1995 and 2006 (the EPICure studies). British Medical Journal 345: e7976. doi:10.1136/bmj.e7976.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Darlow, B.A. 2006. The limits of perinatal viability: Grappling with the “grey zone.” The Medical Journal of Australia 185(9): 477–479.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Lui, K., B. Bajuk, K. Foster, et al. 2006. Perinatal care at the borderlines of viability: A consensus based on a NSW and ACT consensus workshop. The Medical Journal of Australia 185(9): 495–500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Maclean, A.R. 2008. Advance directives and the rocky waters of anticipatory decision-making. Medical Law Review 16(1): 1–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Orfali, K. 2004. Parental role in medical decision-making: Fact or fiction? A comparative study of ethical dilemmas in French and American neonatal intensive care units. Social Science and Medicine 58(10): 2009–2022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Rebagliato, M., M. Cuttini, L. Broggin, et al. 2000. Neonatal end-of-life decision making: Physicians’ attitudes and relationship with self-reported practices in 10 European countries. The Journal of American Medical Association 284(19): 2451–2459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoren, E.M., B. Metze, C. Bührer, and L. Garten. 2013. Online support for parents of preterm infants: A qualitative and content analysis of Facebook “preemie” groups. Archives of Disease in Childhood: Fetal and Neonatal Edition 98(6): F534–F538.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, D.J.C., and R.D. Truog. 2013. The luck of the draw: Physician-related variability in end-of-life decision-making in intensive care. Intensive Care Medicine 39(6): 1128–1132.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Williams, M., J. Chesterman, and P. Grano. 2012. Challenging Australia’s “closed” model of neonatal care: The need for reform following Re Baby D (No 2). Journal of Law and Medicine 19(4): 835–853.PubMedGoogle Scholar