Paeds SAQs · professional-practice-and-evidence
Best-interests decisions and treatment limitation — formative SAQs
Two formative SAQs on best-interests decisions and treatment limitation in paediatrics: the best-interests balance, withholding versus withdrawing, futility, time-limited trials, the window of opportunity, and the ethics and court pathway for disputed decisions.
On this page & tools
Target exams
SAQ 1 — The best-interests balance and a window-of-opportunity decision (10 marks)
A 4-year-old is ventilated and unresponsive three days after a near-drowning cardiac arrest. Neuroimaging shows severe hypoxic-ischaemic injury, and the prognosis for meaningful recovery is poor. The parents, who are present and engaged, ask what the team recommends. [5] [1]
Questions
- State the best-interests principle that frames this decision and the four factors you would weigh. (4 marks) [1]
- Explain the "window of opportunity" concept and why a limitation decision, if made, is most defensible now. (3 marks) [5]
- Outline how you would run the goals-of-care conversation and what you would document. (3 marks) [1] [9]
Model answer
Best-interests principle and factors (4). For a child who cannot decide for themselves, the best-interests standard weighs the benefits of continued life-sustaining treatment against its burdens from the child's point of view. The factors to weigh are the chance of survival and meaningful recovery, the relief or burden of continued treatment, the preservation of relationships and future development, and the cumulative burden — suffering, loss of dignity, and prolonged dying — set against any achievable gain. [1]
Window of opportunity (3). Wilkinson described the window of opportunity: after a catastrophic, irreversible brain injury the prognosis is clearest in the first days, and a withdrawal decision is most defensible in that window. As time passes the picture muddies, complications accumulate, and the same withdrawal becomes harder to justify and harder to execute well, so a decision made now is more defensible than one deferred. [5]
Conversation and documentation (3). Set the scene, give a warning shot, and share the prognosis honestly. Ask the parents what they understand and what matters most to them, explore their values and fears, and agree a plan you both own. Bring a second senior clinician and the team to consensus beforehand. Document the benefits and burdens analysis, who was present and agreed, what will and will not be offered, the comfort plan, and the bereavement follow-up. [1] [9]
You have read the opening of this SAQ. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the Paediatrics Fellowship fellowship atlas.
References6Show ledgerHide ledger
- [1]Larcher V, Craig F, Bhogal K, Wilkinson D, Brierley J Making decisions to limit treatment in life-limiting and life-threatening conditions in children: a framework for practice. Arch Dis Child, 2015.PMID 25802250
- [4]Truog RD, Campbell ML, Curtis JR, Haas CE, Luce JM, Rubenfeld GD Recommendations for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: a consensus statement by the American College of Critical Care Medicine. Crit Care Med, 2008.PMID 18431285
- [5]Wilkinson D The window of opportunity for treatment withdrawal. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 2011.PMID 21383270
- [6]Wilkinson D In Favour of Medical Dissensus: Why We Should Agree to Disagree About End-of-Life Decisions. Bioethics, 2016.PMID 25908398
- [9]Himelstein BP Palliative care for infants, children, adolescents, and their families. J Palliat Med, 2006.PMID 16430356
- [12]Freckelton I, McGregor S Refusal of potentially life-saving treatment for minors: The emerging international consensus by courts. J Law Med, 2016.PMID 30136557