What value is placed on the lives of infants compared with older children, adults, and the elderly? To find out, researchers in Montreal conducted an intriguing study.1 Five hundred twenty-four physicians and medical students were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire that asked whether they would resuscitate (and in what order) 8 different incompetent patients with potential neurologic sequelae.

The 8 theoretical patients were a preterm neonate, a term neonate, a 2-month-old, and a 50-year-old (all with 50% chance of survival and 50% chance of impairment), 2 patients with disability, one 7-year-old, one 80-year-old (also with 50% chance of survival), and a 14-year-old and a 35-year-old, both with only a 5% chance of survival.

The largest number of respondents said they would "always resuscitate" the 7-year-old (77%) and the 2-month-old, followed by the 50-year-old (53%) and the term newborn (50%). Patients who would be resuscitated least frequently were the 80-year-old (18%) and the preterm baby (35%). The triage order in which respondents said they would resuscitate if all patients presented simultaneously was: the 2-month-old, the 7-year-old, the 14-year-old, the term newborn, the 50-year-old, the 35-year-old, the premature newborn, and the 80-year-old.

Order of resuscitation was not closely related to the predicted survival, impairment, or potential life years gained. Patient age appeared to have a strong influence, with children's lives being valued more than the adults' except for the newborn infants who were undervalued than older children. Premature infants were most undervalued.1

Reference