Unenviable decisions: Is it ethically justifiable to withhold parenteral nutrition from infants with ultra-short bowel syndrome?

Abstract

Infant A was born at term with an antenatal diagnosis of gastroschisis. His parents were well informed about the condition and understood that he would require surgery. However, at delivery, his bowel was found to be severely compromised. Infant A returned from theatre with only four centimeters of small bowel. This is physiologically devastating and easily qualifies as ultrashort bowel syndrome (USBS). Whilst the prognosis from ultrashort bowel syndrome is greatly improving, the condition continues to carry a significant risk of mortality and morbidity, in part attributable to treatment itself. The cornerstone of management of USBS is provision of intravenous parenteral nutrition (PN). This is not a physiologically normal route of nutrition; it is a medical treatment. Infant A’s parents questioned whether continuation of active treatment was appropriate. If a treatment is not in the patient’s best interests, then it can be argued it is not justified to administer it. Decisions about quality of life are intensely personal. Where there is a significant burden of treatment, even when there is a potential for increased survival, whether the course of treatment is in the child’s best interests must be taken with huge emphasis on the parental perspective and their family values. For well-informed, realistic parents who are welcoming of the full picture of information and implications of their decision, I argue that parents are best placed to make the decision for their child. Long-term PN for USBS may well be a medically encouraged treatment. However, it should not be medically mandated.