Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 100, No. 2, 2011
Issue release date: August 2011
Neonatology 2011;100:206–214

The French Society of Neonatology’s Proposals for Neonatal End-of-Life Decision-Making

Dageville C. · Bétrémieux P. · Gold F. · Simeoni U. · for the Working Group on Ethical Issues in Perinatology1
aNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Division of Pediatrics, University Hospital, Nice, bPediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Division of Pediatrics, University Hospital, Rennes, cDivision of Neonatology, Paris 6 University Hospital, Paris, and dDivision of Neonatology and Espace Ethique Méditerranéen, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille and Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password

Contact Information

I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in


Background: Opinions and practice regarding end-of-life decisions in neonatal medicine show considerable variations between countries. A recent change of the legal framework, together with an ongoing debate among French neonatologists, led the French Society of Neonatology to reconsider and update its previous recommendations. Objectives: To propose a set of recommendations on the ethical principles to be respected in the making and application of end-of-life decisions. Methods: A multidisciplinary working group on ethical issues in perinatal medicine composed of neonatologists, obstetricians and ethicists. Results: Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment may be acceptable, and unreasonable therapeutic obstinacy is condemned. This implies that the child’s best interests must always be the central consideration. Although the parents must be involved in the decision process so that they form an alliance with the healthcare team, and a collegial approach is of utmost importance, any crucial decision affecting the patient’s life calls for individual medical responsibility. Because every newborn is rightfully an integral member of a human family, his or her dignity must be preserved. The goal of palliative care is to preserve the quality of a life, also at its end. The intention underlying an act has to be analyzed perceptively. Euthanasia, i.e. to perform an act with the deliberate intention to cause or hasten a patient’s death, is legally and morally forbidden. Conversely, to withhold or withdraw a life-sustaining treatment can be justified when the intention is to cease opposing, in an unreasonable manner, the natural course of a disease. Conclusions: This statement provides the principles identified by French neonatologists on which to base their decisions concerning the ending of life. Arguments are set forth, discussed and compared with international statements and previously published considerations.

Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.


  1. Costeloe K, Hennessy E, Gibson AT, Marlow N, Wilkinson AR: The EPICure study: outcomes to discharge from hospital for infants born at the threshold of viability. Pediatrics 2000;106:659–671.
  2. Larroque B, Bréart G, Kaminski M, Dehan M, André M, Burguet A, Grandjean H, Ledéserd B, Lévêque C, Maillard F, Matis J, Rozé JC, Truffert P, Epipage study group: Survival of very preterm infants: Epipage, a population-based cohort study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004;89:F139–F144.
  3. Cuttini M, Casotto V, Orzalesi M, EURONIC Study Group: Ethical issues in neonatal intensive care and physicians’ practices: a European perspective. Acta Paediatr 2006;95(suppl 452):42–46.

    External Resources

  4. Dehan M, Gold F, Grassin M, Janaud JC, Morisot C, Ropert JC, Simeoni U, Fédération Nationale des Pédiatres Néonatologistes: Dilemmes éthiques de la période périnatale: recommandations pour les décisions de fin de vie. Arch Pédiatr 2001;8:407–419.
  5. Groupe de réflexion sur les aspects éthiques de la périnatologie, Azria E, Bétrémieux P, Caeymaex L, Debillon T, Fournié A, Huillery ML, Kuhn P, Lequien P, Altavilla A, Mahieu-Caputo D: L’information dans le contexte du soin périnatal: aspects éthiques. Arch Pediatr 2007;14:1231–1239.
  6. Groupe de réflexion sur les aspects éthiques de la périnatologie, Moriette G, Rameix S, Azria E, Fournié A, Andrini P, Caeymaex L, Dageville C, Gold F, Kuhn P, Storme L, Siméoni U: Naissances très prématurées: dilemmes et propositions de prise en charge. 1. Pronostic des naissances avant 28 semaines, identification d’une zone ‘grise’. Arch Pediatr 2010;17:518–526.
  7. Groupe de réflexion sur les aspects éthiques de la périnatologie, Moriette G, Rameix S, Azria E, Fournié A, Andrini P, Caeymaex L, Dageville C, Gold F, Kuhn P, Storme L, Siméoni U: Naissances très prématurées: dilemmes et propositions de prise en charge. 2. Enjeux éthiques, principes de prise en charge et recommandations. Arch Pediatr 2010;17:527–539.
  8. Groupe de réflexion sur les aspects éthiques de la périnatologie, Dageville C, Rameix S, Andrini P, Betrémieux P, Jarreau PH, Kuhn P, Oriot D: Fin de vie en néonatologie à la lumière de la loi. Arch Pediatr 2007;14:1219–1230.
  9. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (UK): Critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine: ethical issues. November 16, 2006. (accessed January 6, 2010).
  10. Berger TM, Büttiker V, Fauchère JC, Holzgreve W, Kind C, Largo R, Moessinger A, Zimmermann R: Recommendations for the care of infants born at the limit of viability (gestational age 22–26 weeks). 2002. (accessed January 6, 2010).
  11. Verloove-Vanhorick SP: Management of the neonate at the limits of viability: the Dutch viewpoint. BJOG 2006;113(suppl 3):13–16.

    External Resources

  12. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Fetus and Newborn: Noninitiation or withdrawal of intensive care for high-risk newborns. Pediatrics 2007;119:401–403.
  13. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics: Guidelines on forgoing life-sustaining medical treatment. Pediatrics 1994;93:532–536.
  14. Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health: Withdrawing or Withholding Life-Saving Treatment in Children. A Framework for Practice, ed 2. London, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, 2004.
  15. Skupski DW, Chervenak FA, McCullough LB, Bancalari E, Haumont D, Simeoni U, Saugstad O, Donn S, Arabin B, Greenough A, Donzelli G, Levene M, Sen C, Carbonell X, Dudenhausen JW, Vladareanu R, Antsaklis A, Papp Z, Aksit M, Carrapato M: Ethical dimensions of periviability. J Perinat Med 2010;38:579–583.
  16. Berger TM, Hofer A: Causes and circumstances of neonatal deaths in 108 consecutive cases over a 10-year period at the Children’s Hospital of Lucerne, Switzerland. Neonatology 2009;95:157–163.
  17. Baumann-Hölzle R, Maffezzoni M, Bucher HU: A framework for ethical decision making in neonatal intensive care. Acta Paediatr 2005;94:1777–1783.
  18. Miljeteig I, Markestad T, Norheim OF: Physicians’ use of guidelines and attitudes to withholding and withdrawing treatment for extremely premature neonates in Norway. Acta Paediatr 2007;96:825–829.
  19. McHaffie HE, Laing IA, Parker M, McMillan J: Deciding for imperiled newborns: medical authority or parental autonomy? J Med Ethics 2001;27:104–109.
  20. McHaffie HE, Lyon AJ, Hume R: Deciding on treatment limitation for neonates: the parents’ perspective. Eur J Pediatr 2001;160:339–344.
  21. McHaffie HE, Cuttini M, Bröltz-Voit G, Randag L, Mousty R, Duguet AM, Wennergren B, Benciolini P: Withholding/withdrawing treatment from neonates: legislation and official guidelines across Europe. J Med Ethics 1999;25:440–446.
  22. Cuttini M, Rebagliato M, Bortoli P, Hansen G, De Leeuw R, Lenoir S, Persson J, Reid M, Schroell M, De Vonderweid U, Kaminski M, Lenard H, Orzalesi M, Saracci R: Parental visiting, communication, and participation in ethical decisions: a comparison of neonatal unit policies in Europe. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1999;81:F84–F91.
  23. Laing IA, Freer Y: Reorientation of care in the NICU. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2008;13:305–309.
  24. McHaffie HE, Lyon AJ, Fowlie PW: Lingering death after treatment withdrawal in the neonatal intensive care unit. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2001;85:F8–F12.
  25. Smets T, Bilsen J, Cohen J, Rurup ML, de Keyser E, Deliens L: The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: legal notification, control and evaluation procedures. Health Policy 2009;90:181–187.
  26. Munson D: Withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in pediatric and neonatal intensive care units. Pediatr Clin N Am 2007;54:773–785.
  27. Provoost V, Deliens L, Cools F, Deconinck PG, Ramet J, Mortier F, Vandenplas Y: A classification of end-of-life decisions in neonates and infants. Acta Paediatr 2004;93:301–305.
  28. Verhagen E, Sauer PJ: The Groningen protocol – euthanasia in severely ill newborns. N Engl J Med 2005;352:959–962.
  29. Sauer PJ, Verhagen AA: The Groningen protocol, unfortunately misunderstood. Commentary on Gesundheit et al.: the Groningen protocol – the Jewish perspective. Neonatology 2009;96:11–12.
  30. Kodish E: Paediatric ethics: a repudiation of the Groningen protocol. Lancet 2008;371:892–893.
  31. Jotkowitz AB, Glick S: The Groningen protocol: another perspective. J Med Ethics 2006;32:157–158.
  32. Gesundheit B, Steinberg A, Blazer S, Jotkowitz A: The Groningen Protocol – the Jewish perspective. Neonatology 2009;96:6–10.
  33. Verhagen AA, Dorscheidt JH, Engels B, Hubben JH, Sauer PJ: End-of-life decisions in Dutch neonatal intensive care units. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009;163:895–901.
  34. Comité Consultatif National d’Ethique pour les sciences de la vie et de la santé: Fin de vie, arrêt de vie, euthanasie. Avis No 63. Janvier 27, 2000. (accessed January 6, 2010).
  35. Comité Consultatif National d’Ethique pour les sciences de la vie et de la santé: Réflexions éthiques autour de la réanimation néonatale. Avis No 65. Septembre 14, 2000. (accessed January 6, 2010).

Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50