Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3/2020

Open Access 01-09-2020 | Neonatology | Scientific Contribution

Neonatology in Austria: ethics to improve practice

Author: Michal Stanak

Published in: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

In the world of Austrian neonatal intensive care units, the role of ethics is recognized only partially. The normatively tense cases that are at the backdrop of this essay concern the situations around the limit of viability (weeks 22 + 0 days to 25 + 6 days of gestation), which is the point in the development of an extremely preterm infant at which there are chances of extra-uterine survival. This essay first outlines the key explicit ethical challenges that are mainly concerned with notions of uncertainty and best interest. Then, it attempts to elucidate the less explicit ethical challenges related to the notion of nudging in the neonatal practice and argue that the role of ethics needs to be recognized more—with the focus on the role of virtue ethics—in order to improve the practice of neonatal medicine.
Literature
Stanak, M., and Hawlik, K. 2017. Perinatal Care at the threshold of viability Part II: Decision-making at the threshold of viability and ethical challenges at Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs). Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment; 2017 [cited 2017 12.01.2017], https://​www.​hta.​lbg.​ac.​at/​page/​ankuendigungen/​de.
Berger, A. 2017. Erstversorgung von Frühgeborenen an der Grenze der Lebensfähigkeit. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 165: 139–147.
Myrhaug, H.T.B.K., L. Hov, K. Håvelsrud, and L.M. Reinar. 2017. Prognose for og oppfølging av ekstremt premature barn: En systematisk oversikt. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Public Health.
Leuthner, S.R. 2014. Borderline Viability: Controversies in Caring for the Extremely Premature Infant. Clinics in Perinatology. 41 (4): 799–814.
Hawlik, K., and Stanak, M. 2017. Systematic Analysis of Outcomes and Resource Needs for Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU) to inform Health Care Planning. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment. Contract No.: 97b.
Marlow, N., C. Bennett, E.S. Draper, E.M. Hennessy, A.S. Morgan, and K.L. Costeloe. 2014. Perinatal Outcomes for Extremely Preterm Babies in Relation to Place of Birth in England: The EPICure 2 Study. Archives of Disease in Childhood Fetal and Neonatal Edition 99 (3): F181–F188.
Lantos, J., and W. Meadow. 2009. Variation in Treatment of Infants Born at the Borderline of Viability. Pediatrics 123: 1588–1590.
Dupont-Thibodeau, A., K.J. Barrington, B. Farlow, and A. Janvier. 2014. End-Of-Life Decisions for Extremely Low-Gestational-Age Infants: Why Simple Rules for Complicated Decisions Should Be Avoided. Seminars in Perinatology 38 (1): 31–37.
Stanak, M. 2018. Professional Ethics: The Case of Neonatology. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 22: 231–238.
Larcher, V. 2013. Ethical Considerations in Neonatal End-Of-Life Care. Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 18 (2): 105–110.
Gillam, L., D. Wilkinson, V. Xafis, and D. Isaacs. 2017. Decision-Making at the Borderline of Viability: Who Should Decide and on What Basis? Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 53 (2): 105–111.
Lantos, J.D. 2018. Ethical Problems in Decision Making in the Neonatal ICU. The New England Journal of Medicine 379 (19): 1851–1860.
Halpern, D. 2015. Inside the Nudge Unit. Lonson: Penguin.
Howard, M.F., R.O. Murphy, and J.M. Lotenz. 2012. Default Options and Neonatal Resuscitation Decisions. Journal of Medical Ethics 38: 713–718.
Guillén, Ú., et al. 2015. Guidelines for the Management of Extremely Premature Deliveries: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics 136 (2): 343–350.
Janvier, A., K. Barrington, and B. Farlow. 2014. Communication with parents concerning withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining interventions in neonatology. Seminars in Perinatology 38 (1): 38–46.
Stanak, M. 2019. Nudging in Neonatology: Practical Wisdom and Accountability for Reasonableness. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 35 (1): 5–9.
Thaler, R.H., and C.R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
Hyman J. 2015. Action, Knowledge, & Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press UK.
Aristotle. 2011. Nicomachean Ethics. London: The Universtiy of Chicago Press.
Levy, N. 2018. Taking Responsibility for Health in an Epistemically Polluted Environment. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 39 (2): 123–141.
Peels, R. 2016. Responsible Belief: A Theory in Ethics and Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press USA.
Smith, H. 1983. Culpable Ignorance. Philosophical Review. 92 (4): 543–571.
Stewart, S.A. 2005. Can Behavioural Economics Save Us From Ourselves? The University of Chicago Magazine 97 (3): 1.
Ploug, T., S. Holm, and J. Brodersen. 2012. To Nudge or Not to Nudge: Cancer Screening Programmes and the Limits of Libertarian Paternalism. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 66 (12): 1193.
Fischer, J.M., and M. Ravizza. 1998. Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saghai, Y. 2013. Salvaging the Concept of Nudge. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8): 487.
Levy, N. 2017. Nudges in a Post-Truth World. Journal of Medical Ethics 43 (8): 495–500.
Kakkilaya, V., L.J. Groome, D. Platt, D. Kurepa, A. Pramanik, G. Caldito, et al. 2011. Use of a Visual Aid to Improve Counseling at the Threshold of Viability. Pediatrics 128 (6): e1511.
Guillen, U., and H. Kirpalani. 2018. Ethical Implications of the Use of Decision Aids for Antenatal Counseling at the Limits of Gestational Viability. Seminars in Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 23 (1): 25–29.
Daniels, N., and G.J. van der Wilt. 2016. Health Technology Assessment, Deliberative Process, and Ethically Contested Issues. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 32 (1/2): 10–15.
Mill, J.S. 2011. On Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loewenstein, G., C. Bryce, D. Hagmann, and S. Rajpal. 2015. Warning: You are about to be Nudged. Behavioral Science & Policy. 1 (1): 35–42.
Mahl, S., et al. 2015. The Association of Organizational Culture and Quality Improvement Implementation With Neonatal Outcomes in the NICU. Journal of Pediatric Health Care 29 (5): 435–441.
Weiss, M.E., F.K. Barg, N. Cook, E. Black, and S. Joffe. 2016. Parental Decision-Making Preferences in Neonatal Intensive Care. The Journal of Pediatrics. 179: 36–41.
Weiss, E.M., and D.A. Munson. 2016. Action and Uncertainty in Neonatal Intensive Care, 31–33. Oxfordshire: Routledge.
MacIntyre, A. 2014. After Virtue, 4th ed. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Pellegrino, E.D. 2009. Professing Medicine, Virtue Based Ethics, and the Retrieval of Professionalism. In Walker RL, Ivanhoe PJ, ed. Working Virtue. London: Oxford University Press.
Annas, J. 2011. Intelligent Virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tucker Edmonds, B., F. McKenzie, V. Farrow, G. Raglan, and J. Schulkin. 2015a. A National Survey of Obstetricians' Attitudes Toward and Practice of Periviable Intervention. Journal of Perinatology 35 (5): 338–343.
Tucker Edmonds, B., F. McKenzie, and R. Frankel. 2014. Content Analysis Comparing Obstetricians' and Neonatologists' Approaches to Periviable Counseling. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 210 (1): S230.
Tucker Edmonds, B., F. McKenzie, J.E. Panoch, A.E. Barnato, and R.M. Frankel. 2015b. Comparing Obstetricians' and Neonatologists' Approaches to Periviable Counseling. Journal of Perinatology 35 (5): 344–348.
Arthur, J., K. Kristjánsson, H. Thomas, B. Kotzee, A. Ignatowicz, and T. Qiu. 2015. Virtuous Medical Practice: Research Report. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Metadata
Title
Neonatology in Austria: ethics to improve practice
Author
Michal Stanak
Publication date
01-09-2020
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Keyword
Neonatology
Published in
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 1386-7423
Electronic ISSN: 1572-8633
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-020-09943-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3/2020 Go to the issue

Review Article

Autonomy in HIV testing: a call for a rethink of personal autonomy in the HIV response in sub-Saharan Africa

Scientific Contribution

Striking the balance with epistemic injustice in healthcare: the case of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

Scientific Contribution

Can reproductive genetic manipulation save lives?

Scientific Contribution

Defensive practice is indefensible: how defensive medicine runs counter to the ethical and professional obligations of clinicians

Scientific Contribution

A critical perspective on guidelines for responsible and trustworthy artificial intelligence

Scientific Contribution

Experiencing objectified health: turning the body into an object of attention