The Intensive Care Lifeboat: a survey of lay attitudes to rationing dilemmas in neonatal intensive care

Abstract

BackgroundResuscitation and treatment of critically ill newborn infants is associated with relatively high mortality, morbidity and cost. Guidelines relating to resuscitation have traditionally focused on the best interests of infants. There are, however, limited resources available in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), meaning that difficult decisions sometimes need to be made. This study explores the intuitions of lay people (non-health professionals) regarding resource allocation decisions in the NICU.MethodsThe study design was a cross-sectional quantitative survey, consisting of 20 hypothetical rationing scenarios. There were 119 respondents who entered the questionnaire, and 109 who completed it. The respondents were adult US and Indian participants of the online crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk. Respondents were asked to decide which of two infants to treat in a situation of scarce resources. Demographic characteristics, personality traits and political views were recorded. Respondents were also asked to respond to a widely cited thought experiment involving rationing.ResultsThe majority of respondents, in all except one scenario, chose the utilitarian option of directing treatment to the infant with the higher chance of survival, higher life expectancy, less severe disability, and less expensive treatment. As discrepancy between outcomes decreased, however, there was a statistically significant increase in egalitarian responses and decrease in utilitarian responses in scenarios involving chance of survival (P = 0.001), life expectancy (P = 0.0001), and cost of treatment (P = 0.01). In the classic ‘lifeboat’ scenario, all but two respondents were utilitarian.ConclusionsThis survey suggests that in situations of scarcity and equal clinical need, non-health professionals support rationing of life-saving treatment based on probability of survival, duration of survival, cost of treatment or quality of life. However, where the difference in prognosis or cost is very small, non-health professionals preferred to give infants an equal chance of receiving treatment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0152-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An ethical algorithm for rationing life-sustaining treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Several years ago, when we asked a random sample of the public, 98% of respondents (88/90) elected to save five drowning people rather than one person; only 2% elected to toss a coin to decide. 9 According to utilitarianism, resources should be distributed to bring about the most good: the greatest good to the greatest number. But non-utilitarian theories can also recognise the importance of this principle.…”

Thyroid function in healthy and unhealthy preterm newborns

“…This reduction in mortality rates of premature babies has drawn attention to increased morbidity issues 3. For those infants who have developmental problems in many aspects, improving growth and development to optimum levels is among one of the leading problems to be dealt with 4. The thyroid gland and hormonal regulation are among the most important systems to be studied in pre-term infants 5…”

Frailty Triage: Is Rationing Intensive Medical Treatment on the Grounds of Frailty Ethical?

“…While some philosophers have defended equal treatment even where that would mean saving fewer lives (for example, tossing a coin to decide whether to send a lifeboat to save five people or one person) (Taurek 1977), other philosophers have persuasively argued that equal consideration of interests supports saving a greater number of lives (Parfit 1978). Surveys of the general public suggest that they overwhelmingly support this principle (Arora et al 2016).…”

“…In a setting where many patients are in need of respiratory support, it is relevant that someone might survive (after COVID-19) for 40 years, rather than die within a matter of months even if they recover from their acute illness. The principle of prioritizing patients who would survive longer has broad intuitive appeal (Arora et al 2016). It reflects the widely accepted notion that life is valuable not merely in and of itself, but also because of the wellbeing that it brings.…”