BackgroundIn the last 20 years, the chances for intact survival for extremely preterm infants have increased in high income countries. Decisions about withholding or withdrawing intensive care remain a major challenge in infants born at the limits of viability. Shared decision-making regarding these fragile infants between health care professionals and parents has become the preferred model today. However, there is an ongoing ethical debate on how decisions regarding life-sustaining treatment should be reached and who should have the final word when health care professionals and parents do not agree. We designed a survey among neonatologists and neonatal nurses to analyze practices, difficulties and parental involvement in end-of-life decisions for extremely preterm infants.MethodsAll 552 physicians and nurses with at least 12 months work experience in level III neonatal intensive care units (NICU) in Switzerland were invited to participate in an online survey with 50 questions. Differences between neonatologists and NICU nurses and between language regions were explored.ResultsNinety six of 121 (79%) physicians and 302 of 431(70%) nurses completed the online questionnaire. The following difficulties with end-of-life decision-making were reported more frequently by nurses than physicians: insufficient time for decision-making, legal constraints and lack of consistent unit policies. Nurses also mentioned a lack of solidarity in our society and shortage of services for disabled more often than physicians. In the context of limiting intensive care in selected circumstances, nurses considered withholding tube feedings and respiratory support less acceptable than physicians. Nurses were more reluctant to give parents full authority to decide on the course of action for their infant. In contrast to professional category (nurse or physician), language region, professional experience and religion had little influence if any on the answers given.ConclusionsPhysicians and nurses differ in many aspects of how and by whom end-of-life decisions should be made in extremely preterm infants. The divergencies between nurses and physicians may be due to differences in ethics education, varying focus in patient care and direct exposure to the patients. Acknowledging these differences is important to avoid potential conflicts within the neonatal team but also with parents in the process of end-of-life decision-making in preterm infants born at the limits of viability.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12887-018-1040-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction The management of disorders or differences of sex development (DSD) remains complex, especially with respect to parents' decision for or against early genitoplasty. Most parents still tend to disfavor postponing surgery until the child is old enough to provide consent. Aim To identify the determinants of parental decisions for or against early sex assignment surgery in DSD children, and in particular to assess the influence of contrasting behavior of health-care professionals and the information they dispense. Methods Preliminary data analysis from a focus group identified two broad approaches to counseling information. Two six-minute counseling videos were produced on this basis: one medicalized, by an endocrinologist, the other demedicalized, by a psychologist. Third-year medical students (N = 89) were randomized to watch either video as prospective parents and report its impact on their decision in a self-administered questionnaire. Main Outcome Measures Statistical analysis of questionnaire responses regarding decisions for or against surgery, including self-assessed impact of potential determinants. Results Thirty-eight of eighty-nine “parents” (43%) chose early surgery for “their” child, including 27/41 “parents” (66%) shown the medicalized video vs. 11/48 (23%) shown the demedicalized video (P < 0.001). Desired aims for “their” child also differed significantly depending on the counseling approach viewed. Yet “parents” perceived their personal attitudes on a four-point Likert scale as the main influence on their decision although their “attitude” was significantly shaped by the video. Conclusions Parental decisions concerning early sex assignment surgery for DSD children depend on the health professional counseling received, to a degree of which neither parents nor professionals appear fully aware. In the absence of conclusive data for or against early surgery, there is a danger of medicalized or demedicalized parentalism resulting in irreversible and inadequately grounded decisions, regardless of the consensus statement of 2005 and the subsequent call for multidisciplinary management.

Aims: This study explores attitudes, motivations and self-reported impact in connection with direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic testing amongst a group of life scientists in Switzerland. Methods: Data were collected through: (1) a self-completion online questionnaire, and (2) semi-structured qualitative interviews. Forty participants completed the questionnaire and 10 were interviewed. Results: Curiosity was mentioned as the primary reason for undergoing testing, while less significance was attributed to receiving actionable health information. The opportunity to contribute to research ranked high as a motive for testing. Overall, participants assessed their experience with the test as positive and were willing to recommend it to others. Some reported that the testing had an impact on how they view their health, but only a third of participants planned on showing the results to health practitioners. Participants consistently referred to ‘fun’ when describing several aspects of the testing experience. The ‘fun factor’ manifested itself in different phases of the process, including the motivation for taking the test, receiving the information and putting the test results to use (including sharing and discussing it with others). This finding suggests the need to further explore the concept of personal utility in DTC genomics. Conclusions: Although this group is not representative of the broader population due to both their scientific expertise and their willingness to try out a controversial new technology, their experiences provide valuable insights into the role of personal curiosity and altruism (fostering medical research) as motivations for testing and the utility attributed to both.

Our retrospective study presents and evaluates clinical ethics consultations (CECs) in pediatrics as a structure for implementing hospital-wide ethics. We performed a descriptive and statistical analysis of clinical ethics decision making and its implementation in pediatric CECs at Zurich University Children's Hospital. Ninety-five CECs were held over 5 years for 80 patients. The care team reached a consensus treatment recommendation after one session in 75 consultations (89 %) and on 82 of 84 ethical issues (98 %) after two or more sessions (11 repeats). Fifty-seven CECs recommended limited treatment and 23 maximal treatment. Team recommendations were agreed outright by parents and/or patient in 59 of 73 consultations (81 %). Initial dissensus yielded to explanatory discussion or repeat CEC in seven consultations (10 %). In a further seven families (10 %), no solution was found within the CEC framework: five (7 %) required involvement of the child protection service, and in two families, the parents took their child elsewhere. Eventual team-parent/patient consensus was reached in 66 of 73 families (90 %) with documented parental/patient decisions (missing data, n = 11). Patient preference was assessable in ten CECs. Patient autonomy was part of the ethical dilemma in only three CECs. The Zurich clinical ethics structure produced a 98 % intra-team consensus rate in 95 CECs and reduced initial team-parent dissensus from 21 to 10 %. Success depends closely on a standardized CEC protocol and an underlying institutional clinical ethics framework embodying a comprehensive set of transparently articulated values and opinions, with regular evaluation of decisions and their consequences for care teams and families.

Aim: Studies have provided insights into the different attitudes and values of healthcare professionals and parents towards extreme prematurity. This study explored societal attitudes and values in Switzerland with regard to this patient group.Methods: A nationwide trilingual telephone survey was conducted in the French-, Germanand Italian-speaking regions of Switzerland to explore the general population's attitudes and values with regard to extreme prematurity. Swiss residents of 18 years or older were recruited from the official telephone registry using quota sampling and a logistic regression model assessed the influence of socio-demographic factors on end-of-life decision-making.Results: Of the 5112 people contacted, 1210 (23.7%) participated. Of these 5% were the parents of a premature infant and 26% knew parents with a premature infant. Most participants (77.8%) highlighted their strong preference for shared decision-making, and 64.6% said that if there was dissent then the parents should have the final word. Overall, our logistic regression model showed that regional differences were the most significant factors influencing decision-making.