• James Tibballs.
• Intensive Care Unit and Department of Paediatrics, Royal Children's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Vic 3052, Australia. james.tibballs@rch.org.au
• J Law Med. 2006 Nov 1;14(2):244-61.

AbstractWithholding and withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment are common in paediatric practice, especially in intensive care units. However, not all clinicians apparently adhere to principles in ethical guidelines or to the principles which are to be found in judgments from common law cases arising when doctors and parents dispute treatment. This article examines selected ethical guidelines and compares them to judgments in leading cases. The rationale to forgo treatment is usually the child's "best interests" in both clinical practice guidelines and legal cases but in the former "best interests" may remain ill defined. Although "best interests" must essentially pertain to the individual child, the interests of others are not irrelevant. In legal cases "best interests" of the child are defined in terms such as "burden versus benefit", "futility", "indignity", "intolerability", "prolonging death rather than saving life" and "quality of life". These or like terms should form the basis of ethical decisions in discussions with parents when contemplating withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.

27 keywords...

hide…