Beyond the Question: Reexamining a Parent’s Unusual Request

Abstract

Pediatricians sometimes think about medical ethics as the field of determining right and wrong in in answering difficult moral questions that occur at the bedside. But an emphasis on rapidly determining right and wrong when faced with ethical dilemmas can lead clinicians to miss important issues underlying both the question and their approach to answering it. We argue that ethical reflection is not merely a process of getting to the right answer but also a way to probe beyond the original question to better understand the stakeholders’ perspectives and priorities. In this Ethics Rounds, we present the case of an infant born at 23 weeks’ gestation who initially faced numerous complications of prematurity, but has progressed beyond acute critical illness. His father requests a transition to palliative care at a point this option would not typically be offered. The straightforward response to this father’s request is “no.” However, we reexamine the father’s request from the perspective of a neonatologist, a clinical ethicist, and a conflict mediator. Why is the father making this request? Why do clinicians feel rushed to respond? The authors discuss how elements of surprise and implicit biases can push clinicians to hasty answers. We introduce tools used in clinical ethics consultation and conflict mediation that can facilitate alternative responses from the clinical team. Employing the “Ladder of Inference,” ascertaining the “View from Everywhere,” and differentiating positions from interests can help clinicians explore the context of ethical questions and lead to more fruitful resolutions.