The ethics and practice of perinatal care at the limit of viability: FIGO recommendations

• Published in: International journal of gynecology and obstetrics Vol. 166; no. 2; pp. 644 - 647
• Main Authors: Vidaeff, Alex C., Capito, Lourdes, Gupte, Sanjay, Antsaklis, Aris
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01.08.2024
• Subjects: ethics; extreme prematurity; neonatal resuscitation; periviability
• ISSN: 0020-7292; 1879-3479; 1879-3479
• DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.15744

An arbitrary gestational age limit of viability cannot be set, and in clinical practice the focus should be on a periviability interval—the so‐called “gray zone” of prognostic uncertainty. For cases within this interval, the most appropriate decision‐making process remains debatable and periviability has emerged as one of the greatest challenges in bioethics. Universally recognized ethical principles may be interpreted differently due to socioeconomic, cultural, and religious aspects. In the case of periviability, there is considerable uncertainty over whether interventions result in a greater balance of clinical good over harm. Furthermore, the fetus or neonate is unable to exercise autonomy and the physicians and parents will act as patient surrogates. When parents and physicians disagree about the infant's best interest, a dialogue without paternalistic attitudes is essential, whereby physicians should only offer, but not recommend, perinatal interventions. Parental choice, based on thorough information, should be respected within the limits of what is medically feasible and appropriate. When disagreements between parents and physicians occur, how is consensus to be achieved? Professional guidelines can be helpful as a framework and starting point for discussion. In reality, however, guidelines only rarely draw categorical lines and in many cases remain vague and ambiguously worded. Local ethics committees can provide counseling and function as moderators during discussions, but ethics committees do not have decision precedence. Counseling assumes the most significant role in periviability discussions, taking into consideration the particular fetal and maternal characteristics, as well as parental values. Several caveats should be observed relative to counseling: message fragmentation or inconsistence should be minimized, prognosis should preferably be presented in a positive framing, and overreliance on statistics should be avoided. It is recommended that decisions regarding neonatal resuscitation in the periviability interval be made before birth and not conditional on the newborn's appearance at birth. Regardless of decision, it is important to assure pre‐ and postnatal coherence. The present article describes how individual physicians, centers, and countries differ in the approach to the decision to initiate or forgo intensive care in the periviability interval. It is impossible to provide a global consensus view and there can be no unifying ethical, moral, or practical strategy. Nevertheless, ethically justified, quality care comprises early involvement of the obstetric and neonatal team to enable a coherent, comprehensible, nonpaternalistic, and balanced plan of care. Ultimately, physicians will need to adjust the expectations to the local standards, local outcome data, and local neonatal support availability. Synopsis Ethically justified, quality care comprises early involvement of the obstetric and neonatal team to enable a coherent, comprehensible, nonpaternalistic, and balanced plan of care.