Article Text
Abstract
Religion is an important element of end-of-life care on the paediatric intensive care unit with religious belief providing support for many families and for some staff. However, religious claims used by families to challenge cessation of aggressive therapies considered futile and burdensome by a wide range of medical and lay people can cause considerable problems and be very difficult to resolve. While it is vital to support families in such difficult times, we are increasingly concerned that deeply held belief in religion can lead to children being potentially subjected to burdensome care in expectation of ‘miraculous’ intervention. We reviewed cases involving end-of-life decisions over a 3-year period. In 186 of 203 cases in which withdrawal or limitation of invasive therapy was recommended, agreement was achieved. However, in the 17 remaining cases extended discussions with medical teams and local support mechanisms did not lead to resolution. Of these cases, 11 (65%) involved explicit religious claims that intensive care should not be stopped due to expectation of divine intervention and complete cure together with conviction that overly pessimistic medical predictions were wrong. The distribution of the religions included Protestant, Muslim, Jewish and Roman Catholic groups. Five of the 11 cases were resolved after meeting religious community leaders; one child had intensive care withdrawn following a High Court order, and in the remaining five, all Christian, no resolution was possible due to expressed expectations that a ‘miracle’ would happen.
- Children
- care of dying minors
- religious ethics
- minors/parental consent
- clinical ethics
- definition/determination of death
- ethics committees/consultation
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
Disclaimer Thanks to the Rev Dorothy Moore-Brooks for her help with preparing this manuscript. The views expressed in this manuscript are entirely those of the authors and not of the institution in which they work.
-
Competing interests None.
-
Ethics approval Not really a ‘study’ but a review of cases referred, and no identifiable clinical details provided.
-
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- Clinical ethics
- The concise argument
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Infant circumcision: the last stand for the dead dogma of parental (sovereignal) rights
- Withholding and withdrawing of life sustaining treatment in the newborn
- Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children: a framework for practice
- Is it in the best interests of an intellectually disabled infant to die?
- The child's interests and the case for the permissibility of male infant circumcision
- If you ask the wrong question, you'll get the wrong answer
- Worth living or worth dying? The views of the general public about allowing disabled children to die
- Female genital alteration: a compromise solution
- Withholding artificial nutrition and hydration
- Cultural sensitivity in paediatrics