{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0273972602739726, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003424657534246575, 'mean_word_length': 5.493333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Review on Neonatal End-of-Life Decision-Making: Medical Authority or Parental Autonomy?

As advances in medical technology are constantly re-defining the lower limit of newborn viability, the practice of withholding/withdrawing treatment in neonatal care is increasingly prevalent. Now more than ever, physicians working in neonatal intensive care units have to constantly face the ethical dilemma of terminating the neonates' life support, sometimes against the parents' desire. Traditionally and legally, parents have the duty to make decisions on behalf of their infants because they are the ones to whom the consequences matter the most. Physicians, on the other hand, often claim for themselves the role of the child's advocate, with the growing acceptance of the patient's “best interest” standard as the guiding principle. In this mini literature review, the authors examined the issue of medical authority versus parental autonomy in neonatal end-of-life (EoL) decision-making and found that consultations with parents were made in the majority (79–100%) of cases. Furthermore, conflicts between doctors and family were shown to occur quite frequently due to barriers to effective communication such as strong religious convictions and disagreements within medical team members. Only by encouraging active parental participation and overcoming some of these barriers, physicians and the patient's family could arrive at an ethically sound EoL decision.