Default options and neonatal resuscitation decisions

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 38, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 713-718

  Haward, Marlyse Frieda ^a,c   Murphy, Ryan O ^b   Lorenz, John M ^c  

^a ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CONFIDENTIALITY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY ROOM; ETHICS; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMAN; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MARRIAGE; NEWBORN; PALLIATIVE THERAPY; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PREMATURITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RELIGION; RESUSCITATION; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COERCION; CONFIDENTIALITY; DECISION MAKING; DELIVERY ROOMS; DISCLOSURE; FEMALE; GESTATIONAL AGE; HUMANS; INFANT, EXTREMELY PREMATURE; INFANT, NEWBORN; INTERNET; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MARITAL STATUS; PALLIATIVE CARE; PERSONAL AUTONOMY; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; RELIGION; RESUSCITATION ORDERS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84872227980     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100182     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Lorenz JM. Can rule-based ethics help in the NICU? Commentary Number 2. Virtual Mentor. 2008;10:630-4. http://virtualmentor.ama-assn.org/2008/10/ccas2-0810.html (accessed 20 Jun 2011).
2. Lorenz JM, Wooliever DE, Jetton JR, et al. A quantitative review of mortality and developmental disability in extremely premature newborns. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998;152:425-35.
3. Meadow W, Lagatta J, Andrews B, et al. Just in time: ethical Implications of Serial Predictions of death and Morbidity for Ventilated premature infants. Pediatrics 2008;121:732-40.
4. MacDonald H; American Academy of Pediatrics, committee on Fetus and Newborn. Perinatal care at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics 2002;110:1024-7.
5. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Dilemmas in current practice: babies born at the borderline of viability. Critical Care Decisions in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine: Ethical Issues. London: Neuffield Council on Bioethics, 2006:67-87.
6. ACOG Practice Bulletin: Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician- Gynecologists. Perinatal Care at the Threshold of Viability. Vol. 38. Compendium of Selected Publications, 2002:551-7.
7. Leuthner S. Decisions regarding resuscitation of extremely premature infant and models of best interest. J Perinatol 2001;21:193-8.
8. Payot A, Gendron S, Lefebrve F, et al. Deciding to Resuscitate Extremely Premature Infants: how do parents and neonatologists engage in the decision? Soc Sci Med 2007;64:1487-500.
9. Kon AA. The "Window of Opportunity" Helping parents make the most difficult decision they will ever face using an informed non-dissent model. Am J Bioeth 2009;9:55-62.
10. Feudtner C, Munson D, Morrison W. Framing permission for halting or continuing life-extending therapies. Virtual Mentor 2008;10:506-10. http://virtualmentor.amaassn.org/2008/08/medu1-0808.html (accessed 20 Jun 2011).
11. Paris JJ, Graham N, Schreiber MD, et al. Has the Emphasis on autonomy Gone too far? Insights from Dostoevsky on parental decision making in the NICU. Special Section: the power of choice: autonomy, informed consent and the right to Refuse. Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2006;15:147-51.
12. Montello M, Lantos J. The Karamazov complex: Dostoevsky and DNR orders. Perspect Biol Med 2002;45:190-9.
13. Charles C, Whelan T, Gafni A. What do we mean by Partnership in making decisions about treatment. BMJ;1999;319:780-2.
14. Batton DG; Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Antenatal counseling regarding resuscitation at an extremely Low gestational age. Pediatrics 2009;124:422-7.
15. Johnson EJ, Goldstein DG. Default donation decisions. Transplantation 2004;78:1713-16.
16. Johnson E, Goldstein D. Do defaults Save Lives? Science 2003;302:1338-9.
17. Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Asch DA. Harnessing the power of default options to improve health care. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1340-4.
18. MacKenzie CR, Liersch MJ, Finkelstein SK. Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Pscyhol Sci 2006;17:414-20.
19. Plous S. Models of decision making. In: Plous S, Zimbardo PG, eds. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York: McGraw Hill, 1993:94-105.
20. Kressel LM, Chapman GB. The default effect in end of life treatment preferences. Med Decis Making 2007;27:299.
21. Kressel LM, Chapman GB, Leventhal E. The influence of default options on the Expression of end of life treatment preferences in Advace directives. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:1007-10.
22. Johnson EJ, Steffel M, Goldstein D. Making Better decisions: from measuring to constructing preferences. Health Psychol 2005;24:S17-22.
23. Haward MF, Murphy RO, Lorenz JM. Message framing and perinatal decisions. Pediatrics 2008;122:109-18.
24. Chilaka VN, Konjez JC, Stewart CR, et al. Knowledge of Down syndrome in pregnant women from different ethnic groups. Prenat Diag 2001;21:159-64.
25. Michie S, Smith D, Marteau TM. Prenatal Tests: how are women deciding? Prenat Diagn 1999;19:743-48.
26. Kodadek MP, Feeg VD. Using vignettes to explore how parents approach end-of life decision making for terminally ill infants. Pediatr Nurs 2002;28:333-64.
27. Hammerman C, Kornbluth E, Zadka P, et al. Decision making in the critically ill neonate: cultural background v individual life experiences. J Med Ethics 1997;23:164-9.
28. Kupperman M, Feenya D, Gates E, et al. Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnosis choice: long term outcomes matter most. Prenat Diagn 1999;19:711-16.
29. Browner CH, Preloran M, Cox SJ. Ethnicity, bioethics, and prenatal diagnosis: the amniocentesis decisions of Mexican-origin women and their partners. Am J Public Health 1999;89:1658-66.
30. Streiner DL, Saigal S, Burrows E, et al. Attitudes of parents and health care professionals toward active treatment of extremely premature infants. Pediatrics 2001;108:152-7.
31. Hill P, Wood R Jr. Scales of religious orientation. In: Hill P, Wood Jr R, eds. Measures of Religiosity. Alabama: Religions Education Press, 1999: 119-58.
32. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981;211:453-8.
33. Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull 1997;121:3-19.
34. Tversky A. Utility theory and additivity analysis of risky choices. J Exp Psychol 1967;75:27-36.
35. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect Theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979;47:263-91.
36. Haward MF, John LK, Lorenz JM, et al. Effects of description of options on parental perinatal decision-making. Pediatrics 2012;129:891-902.
37. Slovic P. The Construction of preference. Am Psychol 1995;50:364-71.
38. Ripstein A. Authority and Coercion. Philos Publ Aff 2004;32:2-35.
39. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1986.
40. Boss RD, Hutton N, Sulpar LJ, et al. Values parents Apply to decision-making regarding delivery room resuscitation for high-risk newborns. Pediatrics 2008;122:583-9.
41. Yehuda B. Response rate in academic studiesda comparative analysis. Hum Relations 1999;52:421-38.