Authors

  1. Section Editor(s): STOKOWSKI, LAURA A. RN, MS

Article Content

What value is placed on the lives of infants compared with older children, adults, and the elderly? To find out, researchers in Montreal conducted an intriguing study.1 Five hundred twenty-four physicians and medical students were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire that asked whether they would resuscitate (and in what order) 8 different incompetent patients with potential neurologic sequelae.

 

The 8 theoretical patients were a preterm neonate, a term neonate, a 2-month-old, and a 50-year-old (all with 50% chance of survival and 50% chance of impairment), 2 patients with disability, one 7-year-old, one 80-year-old (also with 50% chance of survival), and a 14-year-old and a 35-year-old, both with only a 5% chance of survival.

 

The largest number of respondents said they would "always resuscitate" the 7-year-old (77%) and the 2-month-old, followed by the 50-year-old (53%) and the term newborn (50%). Patients who would be resuscitated least frequently were the 80-year-old (18%) and the preterm baby (35%). The triage order in which respondents said they would resuscitate if all patients presented simultaneously was: the 2-month-old, the 7-year-old, the 14-year-old, the term newborn, the 50-year-old, the 35-year-old, the premature newborn, and the 80-year-old.

 

Order of resuscitation was not closely related to the predicted survival, impairment, or potential life years gained. Patient age appeared to have a strong influence, with children's lives being valued more than the adults' except for the newborn infants who were undervalued than older children. Premature infants were most undervalued.1

 

Reference

 

1. Janvier A, Leblanc I, Barrington KA. Nobody likes premies: the relative value of patients' lives. J Perinatol. 2008 [epub ahead of print]. http://www.nature.com/jp/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/jp2008103.html[Context Link]