ABSTRACT
Neonatal intensive care enables the treatment of many babies born catastrophically ill. The benefit of providing such treatment is usually clear, for most of these babies grow up to enjoy a good quality of life. The clinician's decision-making process starts with the categorization of patient characteristics along a number of dimensions. The distinction between ordinary and extraordinary treatment, which grows out of Catholic moral theology, separates obligatory treatments from those that are not obligatory on the basis of which treatment would benefit the patient. Differences in treatment recommendations according to background characteristics of respondents were investigated using an "overall aggressiveness score" based on responses about treatment in a number of cases. Decision making about the care of catastrophically ill newborns raises many ethical questions. Parents, clinicians, bioethicists, social policy makers, and others face difficult choices concerning how to protect the best interests of such babies.
