Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: Resuscitation 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 neonata...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arora, C., Savulescu, J., Maslen, H., Selgelid, M., Wilkinson, D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5100211/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27821118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0152-y
_version_ 1782466094569619456
author Arora, C.
Savulescu, J.
Maslen, H.
Selgelid, M.
Wilkinson, D.
author_facet Arora, C.
Savulescu, J.
Maslen, H.
Selgelid, M.
Wilkinson, D.
author_sort Arora, C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Resuscitation 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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 MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0152-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5100211
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51002112016-11-08 The Intensive Care Lifeboat: a survey of lay attitudes to rationing dilemmas in neonatal intensive care Arora, C. Savulescu, J. Maslen, H. Selgelid, M. Wilkinson, D. BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: Resuscitation 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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 MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0152-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC5100211/ /pubmed/27821118 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0152-y Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Arora, C.
Savulescu, J.
Maslen, H.
Selgelid, M.
Wilkinson, D.
The Intensive Care Lifeboat: a survey of lay attitudes to rationing dilemmas in neonatal intensive care
title The Intensive Care Lifeboat: a survey of lay attitudes to rationing dilemmas in neonatal intensive care
title_full The Intensive Care Lifeboat: a survey of lay attitudes to rationing dilemmas in neonatal intensive care
title_fullStr The Intensive Care Lifeboat: a survey of lay attitudes to rationing dilemmas in neonatal intensive care
title_full_unstemmed The Intensive Care Lifeboat: a survey of lay attitudes to rationing dilemmas in neonatal intensive care
title_short The Intensive Care Lifeboat: a survey of lay attitudes to rationing dilemmas in neonatal intensive care
title_sort intensive care lifeboat: a survey of lay attitudes to rationing dilemmas in neonatal intensive care
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5100211/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27821118
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0152-y
work_keys_str_mv AT arorac theintensivecarelifeboatasurveyoflayattitudestorationingdilemmasinneonatalintensivecare
AT savulescuj theintensivecarelifeboatasurveyoflayattitudestorationingdilemmasinneonatalintensivecare
AT maslenh theintensivecarelifeboatasurveyoflayattitudestorationingdilemmasinneonatalintensivecare
AT selgelidm theintensivecarelifeboatasurveyoflayattitudestorationingdilemmasinneonatalintensivecare
AT wilkinsond theintensivecarelifeboatasurveyoflayattitudestorationingdilemmasinneonatalintensivecare
AT arorac intensivecarelifeboatasurveyoflayattitudestorationingdilemmasinneonatalintensivecare
AT savulescuj intensivecarelifeboatasurveyoflayattitudestorationingdilemmasinneonatalintensivecare
AT maslenh intensivecarelifeboatasurveyoflayattitudestorationingdilemmasinneonatalintensivecare
AT selgelidm intensivecarelifeboatasurveyoflayattitudestorationingdilemmasinneonatalintensivecare
AT wilkinsond intensivecarelifeboatasurveyoflayattitudestorationingdilemmasinneonatalintensivecare