Response to “Giving ‘Moral Distress’ a Voice: Ethical Concerns Among Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Personnel” by Pam Hefferman and Steve Heilig and “Neonatal Viability in the 1990s: Held Hostage by Technology” by Jonathan Muraskas et al. (CQ Vol 8, No 2)

Abstract

The Spring 1999 issue of Cambridge Quarterly (Volume 8, Number 2) adds to the growing body of academic inquiry into the goals of neonatal intensive care practices. Muraskas and colleagues thoughtfully presented the possibility of nontreatment for neonates born at or under 24 weeks gestation. Jain, Thomasma, and Ragas explained that quality of future life must not be ignored in clinical deliberation. And Hefferman and Heilig described once again the dilemmas nurses face when caring for potentially devastated neonates kept alive by technology. These authors take brave steps by publicly questioning the trend of intensive medical support for most every American-born product of conception. But many questions addressing the goals of neonatal intensive care remain, and few authors have actually tried to distill these goals.