Decades later, neonatologists are now caring for infants weighing as little as 400 g and born as early as 22 weeks’ gestation, in contrast to the birth weights and gestational ages of the infants that were the subjects of the discussions of these authors (i.e. less than 1,000

g and 28 weeks respectively). Additionally, the concept of size has been HTS replaced by the issue of the “limits of viability”. However, despite these developments, or possibly because of them, the ethical selleck catalog dilemmas have not only remained but intensified.3 To most, the adage that “good ethics starts with good facts” should be the guiding principle in resolving Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical these dilemmas. Unfortunately, as will be detailed below, good facts, as in the words of Lantos,4 “do not necessarily lead to a moral consensus”. Even more problematic is the confusion as to what is the basis for determining which data constitute facts or biologic certainty and which are products Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of value judgments, which, in turn, create facts. Further complicating any analysis is the wide variation in both the immediate and long-term outcome results reported by different institutions that precludes generalization

and extrapolation to the individual Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical case in hand. As a result, 40 years after Duff and Campbell, we are still functioning in a moral gray area. To understand better this situation this manuscript will selectively review recently published results regarding treating or not treating infants at the limits of viability. The manuscript

will not provide a comprehensive review Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical or meta-analysis of all the published results, but rather will highlight those reports that have contributed to the seeming continuing moral confusion. THE LIMITS OF VIABILITY Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical Serial data from the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Neonatal Research Network have traditionally served many physicians worldwide as an idealized expectation of outcomes, a “clinical gold standard”. The validity of these data has been based on the assumption that the Batimastat selected university-affiliated academic medical centers in the Network had access to relatively unlimited resources and have been guided by uniform clinical protocols of care provided by the US government. In addition, as the data generated by the Network units reflect the combined experience of 20 university-based NICUs, it theoretically avoids the statistical trap of analyzing too small and/or too selective a population. Its outcome results, thus, in theory could then serve as a valid bench-mark for measuring the success of a given facility (or geographic area) in caring for the extremely immature preterm infant and, in turn, provide a statistical basis for antenatal consultations with parents in a decision-making process as to what care to provide these infants.