| Literature DB >> 29100870 |
Dominic Wilkinson1, Stavros Petrou2, Julian Savulescu3.
Abstract
In newborn intensive care, parents sometimes request treatment that professionals regard as 'futile' or 'potentially inappropriate'. One reason not to provide potentially inappropriate treatment is because it would be excessively costly relative to its benefit. Some public health systems around the world assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments and selectively fund those treatments that fall within a set threshold. This article explores the application of such thresholds to questions in newborn intensive care: (i) when a newborn infant's chance of survival is too small; (ii) how long treatment should continue; (iii) when quality of life is too low; and (iv) when newborn infants are too premature for cost-effective intensive care. This analysis yields some potentially surprising conclusions. Newborn intensive care may be cost-effective even in the setting of very low probability of survival, very poor predicted quality of life, for protracted periods of time, or for the most premature of newborns.Entities:
Keywords: Cost-benefit analysis; Intensive care; Medical ethics; Medical futility; Withholding treatment
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29100870 DOI: 10.1016/j.siny.2017.10.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Semin Fetal Neonatal Med ISSN: 1744-165X Impact factor: 3.926