Skip to main content

The Domain of Parental Discretion in Treatment of Neonates: Beyond the Impasse between a Sanctity-of-Life and Quality-of-Life Ethic

  • Chapter
Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the (Im)Possibility of Global Bioethics

Part of the book series: Philosophy of Medicine ((ASBP,volume 71))

Abstract

Treatment decisions for severely compromised neonates raise important questions about what lives should be saved, at what social and economic cost, and whether there are certain lives that are not worth living. Deliberation on these issues can be framed from the perspective of an individual involved in the care (micro-ethics), a religious or cultural community that would provide guidance for such an individual (inter-ethics), or from a broader social or policy perspective (macro-ethics). The resolutions given at these diverse levels can be in tension with one another, and each by itself is incomplete. Values of parents, culture, religion, and society may compete, and each level (micro-, inter- and macro-) may weight these values differently. In modern societies there are also pressures to discount more traditional religious or family values in favor of social or medical values that influence the current configurations of healthcare. Often the tension between these value systems is not even appreciated by the health care workers who make treatment decisions. In the face of these complex realities of medical decision-making, questions need to be asked about who should make decisions and how they should be made. Should treatment decisions on behalf of neonates be made by parents, family, physician, a cultural or religious group, or society? And what ethical frameworks can be used to guide deliberation?

Thanks to Renzong Qui for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this essay. There are two prominent ways of interpreting the contrast between the sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life ethic. The contrast can be seen as a variant of the one between a deontological and utilitarian ethic (Reich, 1978). Deontic constraints on action (e.g., regarding the taking of life, treating a person as means, and violating autonomy) are associated with the sanctity-oflife ethic, while the maximization of some hedon unit (e.g., satisfaction of preferences) or QUALYs are associated with the quality-of-life ethic. Grisez and Boyle (1979) provide a strong philosophical formulation of the sanctity-of-life position, qua deontological ethic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Amundsen, D. (1978). The physician’s obligation to prolong life: a medical duty without classical roots. Hastings Center Report, (August), 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, T. (1989). Baby Doe: Nothing to fear but fear itself. Journal of Perinatology, 10(3), 307–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T & Childress, J. (1990). Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 3 rd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnell, J. (1951). Sanctity of life. Theology Today, 9 (May-June), 194–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, B. (1988). Life and Death Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Callahan, D. (1970). Abortion: Law, Choice, and Morality. New York: The Macmillan Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Childress, J. F. (1982). Who Should Decide? Paternalism and Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duff, R. & Campbell, A. G. M. (1973). Moral and ethical dilemmas in the special-care nursery. New England Journal of Medicine, 289(25), 890–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, H. T., Jr. (1996). Foundations of Bioethics, 2“d Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, H. T., Jr. & Khushf, G. (1995). Futile care for the critically ill patient. Current Opinion in Critical Care, 1, 329–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. (1951). Our right to die. Theology Today, 8 (May-July), 202–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. (1954). Morals and Medicine. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fost, N. C. (1996). Futile treatment II: Decision-making in the context of probability and uncertainty. In: A. Goldworth, et al. (Eds.), Ethics and Perinatology (pp. 70–81 ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisez, G. & Boyle, J. (1979). Life and Death with Liberty and Justice: A Contribution to the Euthanasia Debate. South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halevy, A. & Brody, B. (1996). A multi-institutional collaborative policy on medical futility. Journal of the American Medical Association, 276(7), 571–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halevy, A., Neal, R., & Brody, B. (1996). The low frequency of futility in an adult intensive care unit setting. Archives of Internal Medicine, 156 (Jan 8), 100–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hui, E. (1999). A Confucian ethic of medical futility. In: R. Fan (Ed.), Confucian Bioethics (pp. 127–163 ). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jecker, N. S. & Pagon, R. A. (1995). Futile treatment I: Decision-making in the context of probability and uncertainty. In: A. Goldworth, et al. (Eds.), Ethics and Perinatology (pp. 4869 ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kass, L. (1991). Death with dignity and the sanctity of life. In: B. Kogan (Ed.), A Time to be Born and a Time to Die: The Ethics of Choice (pp. 117–145 ). Hawthorne: Aldine De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khushf, G. (2002). Beyond the question of limits. In: H. T. Engelhardt, Jr. & M. Cherry (Eds.), Moral Issues in Limiting Access to Medical Treatment. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman, L., Irons, T., & Kopelman, A. (1988). Neonatologists judge the “Baby Doe” regulations. New England Journal of Medicine, 318 (11), 677–683

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman, L. & Moskop, J. (1989). Children and Health Care: Moral and Social Issues. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhse, H. (1987). The Sanctity-of-Life Doctrine in Medicine: A Critique. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhse, H. (1991). Severely disabled infants: sanctity of life or quality of life? Baillieres Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5(3), 743–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhse, H. (1995). Quality of life as a decision-making criterion II. In: A. Goldworth, et al. (Eds.), Ethics and Perinatology (pp. 105–119 ). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, P. (1970). The Patient as Person. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. ( 1984, 1985, 1988). Time and Narrative, vols. 1–3, K. McLaughlin & D. Pellauer (Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, W. (1978). Quality of life. In: W. Reich (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, vol 2. (pp. 829840 ). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneiderman, L. J. & Jecker, N. S. (1995). Wrong Medicine: Doctors, Patients, and Futile Treatment. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shils, E. (Ed.) (1968). Life or Death: Ethics and Options. Portland: Reed College Press. Singer, P. (1983). Sanctity of life or quality of life? Pediatrics, 72 (1),128–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics, 2“ d Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildes, K. (1995). Conserving life and conserving means: Lead us not into temptation. In: K.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildes (Ed.), Critical Choices and Critical Care (pp. 105–118). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Khushf, G. (2002). The Domain of Parental Discretion in Treatment of Neonates: Beyond the Impasse between a Sanctity-of-Life and Quality-of-Life Ethic. In: Po-Wah, J.T.L. (eds) Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the (Im)Possibility of Global Bioethics. Philosophy of Medicine, vol 71. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1195-1_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1195-1_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5969-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1195-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics