The Acceptability Among French Lay Persons of Ending the Lives of Damaged Newborns
Duarte dos Reis, I.
Journal of Medical Ethics 2009 November; 35(11): 701-708
BACKGROUND: Lay persons' judgements of the acceptability of the not uncommon practice of ending the life of a damaged neonate have not been studied. METHODS: A convenience sample of 1635 lay people in France rated how acceptable it would be for a physician to end a neonate's life-by withholding care, withdrawing care, or active euthanasia-in 54 scenarios in which the neonate was diagnosed either with perinatal asphyxia or a genetic abnormality. The scenarios were all combinations of four factors: three levels of maturity or immaturity, three levels of severity of the health problem, three levels of parents' preference concerning prolonging care and two levels of decision-making (with or without consulting the other caregivers). ANALYSES: Analyses of variance of the participants' responses were performed to determine the importance of each factor; the interactions among factors, with methods of ending life and with other patient characteristics; and the differences between asphyxia and genetic abnormality. A cluster analysis was performed to look for groups with different patterns of responses. RESULTS: Lay people assigned most importance to the parents' request and to the severity of the problem. Except for a small group (12%) always opposed to ending life, they used a simple additive-type rule in integrating the information. IMPLICATIONS: Most of this sample of French lay people are not categorically for or against ending the life of a damaged neonate, but judge its degree of acceptability by adding up those factors that seem most salient to them.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
The Acceptability Among Lay Persons and Health Professionals of Actively Ending the Lives of Damaged Newborns Teisseyre, Nathalie; Vanraet, Charles; Sorum, Paul C; Mullet, Etienne (2010-09)Euthanasia is performed on occasion, even on newborns, but is highly controversial, and it is prohibited by law and condemned by medical ethics in most countries.