极低出生体重婴儿护理中的伦理问题。

Pediatrician Pub Date : 1990-01-01
B W Neal
{"title":"极低出生体重婴儿护理中的伦理问题。","authors":"B W Neal","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Advances in the neonatal intensive care (NIC) of the very low birth weight infant (VLBW) have given rise to important ethical questions. (1) Does every VLBW infant have the right to NIC? (2) Who should decide whether to treat? (3) How should resources be allocated for NIC? To play their part in answering these questions, paediatricians must become familiar with the principles of ethical reasoning. A distinction can be drawn between a human being and a human person on the basis of the possession of certain qualities, in the absence of which non-treatment may be justified. It will usually not be possible to make this distinction prospectively and hence it is not of much practical assistance as a criterion for decision making. Future disability of th infant can also be advanced as a reason for non-treatment, but it is not possible to know whether avoidance of disability makes it in the best interest of the infant to not be treated, and hence probable future disability is not per se an acceptable criterion for non-treatment. Pain and distress, however, is within the comprehension of decision makers and its avoidance may be an acceptable criterion for non-treatment (although in practice rarely a helpful one). The most useful criterion is one based on the ethics of resource allocation. Resources should be allocated in accordance with the ethical principles of justice and full beneficence. Criteria based on prognosis should be established to decide which VLBW infants should share in the finite resources directed to NIC.</p>","PeriodicalId":77588,"journal":{"name":"Pediatrician","volume":"17 2","pages":"92-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical aspects in the care of very low birth weight infants.\",\"authors\":\"B W Neal\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Advances in the neonatal intensive care (NIC) of the very low birth weight infant (VLBW) have given rise to important ethical questions. (1) Does every VLBW infant have the right to NIC? (2) Who should decide whether to treat? (3) How should resources be allocated for NIC? To play their part in answering these questions, paediatricians must become familiar with the principles of ethical reasoning. A distinction can be drawn between a human being and a human person on the basis of the possession of certain qualities, in the absence of which non-treatment may be justified. It will usually not be possible to make this distinction prospectively and hence it is not of much practical assistance as a criterion for decision making. Future disability of th infant can also be advanced as a reason for non-treatment, but it is not possible to know whether avoidance of disability makes it in the best interest of the infant to not be treated, and hence probable future disability is not per se an acceptable criterion for non-treatment. Pain and distress, however, is within the comprehension of decision makers and its avoidance may be an acceptable criterion for non-treatment (although in practice rarely a helpful one). The most useful criterion is one based on the ethics of resource allocation. Resources should be allocated in accordance with the ethical principles of justice and full beneficence. Criteria based on prognosis should be established to decide which VLBW infants should share in the finite resources directed to NIC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77588,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatrician\",\"volume\":\"17 2\",\"pages\":\"92-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1990-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatrician\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatrician","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

极低出生体重儿(VLBW)的新生儿重症监护(NIC)的进展引起了重要的伦理问题。(1)是否每个VLBW婴儿都有NIC的权利?(2)由谁来决定是否治疗?(3) NIC的资源应该如何分配?为了在回答这些问题中发挥自己的作用,儿科医生必须熟悉伦理推理的原则。可以根据是否拥有某些品质来区分人和人,如果没有这些品质,不给予治疗是合理的。通常不可能预先作出这种区分,因此它作为决策标准没有多大实际帮助。婴儿未来的残疾也可以作为不治疗的理由,但不可能知道避免残疾是否会使婴儿的最佳利益不得到治疗,因此未来可能的残疾本身并不是不治疗的可接受标准。然而,痛苦和苦恼是决策者能够理解的,对它的回避可能是不进行治疗的可接受标准(尽管在实践中很少有帮助)。最有用的标准是基于资源分配伦理的标准。资源的分配应符合公正和充分行善的道德原则。应建立基于预后的标准,以决定哪些VLBW婴儿应该分享用于NIC的有限资源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ethical aspects in the care of very low birth weight infants.

Advances in the neonatal intensive care (NIC) of the very low birth weight infant (VLBW) have given rise to important ethical questions. (1) Does every VLBW infant have the right to NIC? (2) Who should decide whether to treat? (3) How should resources be allocated for NIC? To play their part in answering these questions, paediatricians must become familiar with the principles of ethical reasoning. A distinction can be drawn between a human being and a human person on the basis of the possession of certain qualities, in the absence of which non-treatment may be justified. It will usually not be possible to make this distinction prospectively and hence it is not of much practical assistance as a criterion for decision making. Future disability of th infant can also be advanced as a reason for non-treatment, but it is not possible to know whether avoidance of disability makes it in the best interest of the infant to not be treated, and hence probable future disability is not per se an acceptable criterion for non-treatment. Pain and distress, however, is within the comprehension of decision makers and its avoidance may be an acceptable criterion for non-treatment (although in practice rarely a helpful one). The most useful criterion is one based on the ethics of resource allocation. Resources should be allocated in accordance with the ethical principles of justice and full beneficence. Criteria based on prognosis should be established to decide which VLBW infants should share in the finite resources directed to NIC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Coronaviral infection Management of asthma in early life. Neuropsychologic (cognitive) disabilities in long-term survivors of childhood cancer. Epidemiology of asthma in childhood. Pathogenesis of asthma.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1