A delicate subject: The impact of cultural factors on neonatal and perinatal decision making.

The neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is a high-stress environment for both families and health care providers that can sometimes make appropriate medical decisions challenging. We present a review article of non-medical barriers to effective decision making in the NICU, including: miscommunication, mixed messages, denial, comparative social and cultural influences, and the possible influence of perceived legal issues and family reliance on information from the Internet. As examples of these barriers, we describe and discuss two cases that occurred simultaneously in the same NICU where decisions were influenced by social and cultural differences that were misunderstood by both medical staff and patients' families. The resulting stress and emotional discomfort created an environment with sub-optimal relationships between patients' families and health care providers. We provide background on the sources of conflict in these particular cases. We also offer suggestions for possible amelioration of similar conflicts with the twin goals of facilitating compassionate decision making in NICU settings and promoting enhanced well-being of both families and providers.

Elective delivery before 39 weeks' gestation: reconciling maternal, fetal, and family interests in challenging circumstances.

We present the case of a 36-year-old woman who has experienced three lost pregnancies; during the most recent loss, a full term pregnancy, she almost died from complications of placental abruption. She is now completing the 34th week of gestation and is experiencing symptoms similar to those under which she lost the previous pregnancy. Despite a lack of specific medical indications, the patient and her husband firmly but politely request that the attending obstetrician/perinatologist perform an immediate cesarean section in order to alleviate the couple's anxiety about possibly never having a family. Discussing the case are an experienced perinatologist, a neonatologist, a regional perinatal center coordinator, and a clinical ethicist.

Overriding psychiatric advance directives: factors associated with psychiatrists' decisions to preempt patients' advance refusal of hospitalization and medication.

Psychiatric advance directives (PADs) are intended to support patients' treatment decisions during a crisis. However, PAD statutes give clinicians broad discretion over whether to carry out patients' advance instructions. This study uses data from a survey of psychiatrists (N=164) to examine reasons for overriding PADs. In response to a hypothetical vignette, 47% of psychiatrists indicated that they would override a valid, competently-executed PAD that refused hospitalization and medication. PAD override was more likely among psychiatrists who worked in hospital emergency departments; those who were concerned about patients' violence risk and lack of insight; and those who were legally defensive. PAD override was less likely among participants who believed that involuntary treatment is largely unnecessary in a high-quality mental health system.