Bioética perinatal: ¿Eutanasia o decisiones sobre terminación de la vida?Análisis del Protocolo de Groningen / Perinatal bioethics: Euthanasia or end-of-life decisions? Analysis of the Groningen Protocol

El protocolo de Groningen, diseñado en el contexto de la sociedad neerlandesa, permisiva frente a la eutanasia voluntaria, causa malestar enotras sociedades.Se aducen su predisposición para la eutanasia que facilitaría a los padres evitar el cuidado de un hijo discapacitado; su aplicación inicial encasos de defectos del tubo neural, y la consideración del sufrimiento insoportable del neonato, difícil de demostrar.Nuestro objetivo es analizar críticamente el protocolo y la posibilidad de su aplicación parcial o total en nuestro medio.Analizamos cuatro recién nacidos con condiciones clínicas muy graves que determinaron su fallecimiento.Sus padres participaron de canalesde diálogo sin límites de tiempo con el equipo de Neonatología; atravesaron tres etapas diferentes:la inicial, donde incentivaron el esfuerzo terapéutico; la intermedia donde requerían evaluaciones del sufrimiento de sus hijos, y la última, durantela que sugerían limitar los esfuerzos terapéuticos para proveer a sus hijos de una muerte digna.Después de la muerte, fueron informados sobre las condiciones del protocolo y las particularidadesde nuestro sistema legal. De haber podido, hubieran requerido la cesación del tratamiento, una vez informados sobre la certeza del pronósticofinal. La participación del Comité de Bioética y las segundas opiniones fueron muy valoradas por los padres. En su contexto, este protocolo noaparece como una guía para la eutanasia, sino para fijar condiciones en la toma de decisiones sobre el final de la vida. Subsisten dudas sobre su aplicación práctica en nuestro medio, dada la incertidumbre de evaluar el grado de sufrimiento insoportable y el momento en que un neonato se encuentra sin futuro.

Bioética perinatal: ¿Eutanasia o decisiones sobre terminación de la vida?Análisis del Protocolo de Groningen / Perinatal bioethics: Euthanasia or end-of-life decisions? Analysis of the Groningen Protocol

El protocolo de Groningen, diseñado en el contexto de la sociedad neerlandesa, permisiva frente a la eutanasia voluntaria, causa malestar enotras sociedades.Se aducen su predisposición para la eutanasia que facilitaría a los padres evitar el cuidado de un hijo discapacitado; su aplicación inicial encasos de defectos del tubo neural, y la consideración del sufrimiento insoportable del neonato, difícil de demostrar.Nuestro objetivo es analizar críticamente el protocolo y la posibilidad de su aplicación parcial o total en nuestro medio.Analizamos cuatro recién nacidos con condiciones clínicas muy graves que determinaron su fallecimiento.Sus padres participaron de canalesde diálogo sin límites de tiempo con el equipo de Neonatología; atravesaron tres etapas diferentes:la inicial, donde incentivaron el esfuerzo terapéutico; la intermedia donde requerían evaluaciones del sufrimiento de sus hijos, y la última, durantela que sugerían limitar los esfuerzos terapéuticos para proveer a sus hijos de una muerte digna.Después de la muerte, fueron informados sobre las condiciones del protocolo y las particularidadesde nuestro sistema legal. De haber podido, hubieran requerido la cesación del tratamiento, una vez informados sobre la certeza del pronósticofinal. La participación del Comité de Bioética y las segundas opiniones fueron muy valoradas por los padres. En su contexto, este protocolo noaparece como una guía para la eutanasia, sino para fijar condiciones en la toma de decisiones sobre el final de la vida. Subsisten dudas sobre su aplicación práctica en nuestro medio, dada la incertidumbre de evaluar el grado de sufrimiento insoportable y el momento en que un neonato se encuentra sin futuro.(AU)

[Perinatal bioethics: euthanasia or end-of-life decisions? Analysis of the Groningen Protocol]. / Bioética perinatal: eutanasia o decisiones sobre terminación de la vida? Análisis del Protocolo de Groningen.

The so called "Groningen Protocol" was conceived as a framework to discuss the euthanasia in neonates. Originally, it presents three groups of babies who might be candidates to this option. We analyzed the protocol in its original context and that of the Dutch society in which it was created. The analysis started with a careful reading of the protocol in both English and Dutch versions, translated later into Spanish. The medical and nursing staff participated in discussing it. A final consensus was reached. The Institutional Ethics Committee at our hospital discussed it freely and made recommendations for its application as a guideline to honestly discuss with parents the clinical condition of their babies, without permitting the option included literally in the word euthanasia. We selected four extremely ill infants. Their parents were interviewed at least twice daily: three stages were identified: the initial one of promoting all possible treatments; a second one of guarded and cautious request for the staff to evaluate "suffering", and a last one where requests were made to reduce therapeutic efforts to provide dignified death. A week after the death of their infants, they were presented with the facts of the protocol and the limits of our legal system. In all four cases the parents suggested that they would have chosen ending the life of their infants, in order to avoid them undue suffering. They clearly pointed out that this option emerged as a viable one to them once the ultimate outcome was evident. The protocol must not be viewed as a guideline for euthanasia in newborns, but rather as a mean to discuss the critical condition of an infant with the parents. Its direct implementation in our setting remains difficult. As a clear limitation for its overall application remains the definition of what is considered "unbearable suffering" in newborns, and how to certify when the infant has "no prospect". We emphasize the benefits of securing the help of the Ethics Committee and of "second opinions" from authorized physicians.

A nitric oxide processing defect of red blood cells created by hypoxia: deficiency of S-nitrosohemoglobin in pulmonary hypertension.

The mechanism by which hypoxia [low partial pressure of O(2) (pO(2))] elicits signaling to regulate pulmonary arterial pressure is incompletely understood. We considered the possibility that, in addition to its effects on smooth muscle, hypoxia may influence pulmonary vascular tone through an effect on RBCs. We report that exposure of native RBCs to sustained hypoxia is accompanied by a buildup of heme iron-nitrosyl (FeNO) species that are deficient in pO(2-)governed intramolecular transfer of NO to cysteine thiol, yielding a deficiency in the vasodilator S-nitrosohemoglobin (SNO-Hb). S-nitrosothiol (SNO)-deficient RBCs produce impaired vasodilator responses in vitro and exaggerated pulmonary vasoconstrictor responses in vivo and are defective in oxygenating the blood. RBCs from hypoxemic patients with elevated pulmonary arterial pressure (PAP) exhibit a similar FeNO/SNO imbalance and are thus deficient in pO(2)-coupled vasoregulation. Chemical restoration of SNO-Hb levels in both animals and patients restores the vasodilator activity of RBCs, and this activity is associated with improved oxygenation and lower PAPs.

A lethal association of congenital apnea with brainstem tegmental necrosis.

We present a female with premature birth, polyhydramnios, congenital apnea, cranial nerve palsies, orofacial and limb anomalies. Neuroimaging revealed calcifications along the vental margin of the caudal fourth ventricle. Neuropathologic findings at postmortem examination were consistent with brainstem tegmental necrosis and olivary hypoplasia, a rare lethal entity that should be considered in the differential diagnosis of congenital apnea.

Inhaled ethyl nitrite gas for persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn.

Inhaled nitric oxide is used to alleviate pulmonary hypertension and hypoxaemia, but generates toxic free radicals and oxides of nitrogen (NO(x)), which can cause rebound-hypoxia and additional pulmonary and other morbidity. To address these problems, we assessed the efficacy of inhaled O-nitrosoethanol gas (ENO) as a novel alternative means of providing nitric oxide bioactivity in the treatment of persistent pulmonary hypertension of newborns. We administered ENO over 4 h to seven neonates who required assisted ventilation, and who had an oxygenation index of 25 or more. ENO was then shut off for 15 min before start of treatment with inhaled nitric oxide. Our results show that ENO produced sustained improvements in postductal arterial oxygenation and systemic haemodynamics, which were maintained during the off-drug observation period. Increases in methaemoglobinaemia were modest and toxic NO(x) were not detected. Thus, ENO can improve oxygenation and systemic haemodynamics in neonates, and seems to reduce rebound hypoxaemia and production of toxic byproducts.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic indomethacin in very-low-birth-weight infants.

OBJECTIVE: To perform cost-effectiveness analysis to facilitate the decision-making process surrounding use of indomethacin in preterm infants to lower the incidence of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), and death. METHODS: A MEDLINE literature search from 1966 to July 2000 was performed to identify relevant randomized, controlled trials (RCTs), as well as cohort and retrospective case-control studies. A decision tree was built representing the choice to use or not use indomethacin, and the potential outcome costs. Probabilities of being in each chance node were obtained from this search. Where data probabilities were not clear, a sensitivity analysis was conducted. RESULTS: There was no difference in the expected survival per year; however, there was a significant difference when effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), resulting in 11 and 10 years for the indomethacin and control groups, respectively. The indomethacin treatment cost was $95,157 and that of the control groups was $99,955. The cost effectiveness per life expectancy of being in the indomethacin and control groups was $7142 and $7727, respectively. The sensitivity analysis for PDA closure and prevention of IVH for infants eventually developing PDA versus those without PDA showed no difference. The cost-effectiveness analysis per QALY was $8443 for the indomethacin treatment and $9168 for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The prophylactic use of indomethacin is less costly and more effective within an important range of certainty. However, this analysis does not include several potentially confounding factors, such as antenatal steroid use or indomethacin-induced renal toxicity. Depending on the frequency with which these factors arise, economic projections may be considerably altered against the early use of indomethacin.