ArticleMonash bioethics review2025
Severe cognitive disability, medically complex children and long-term ventilation.
Article in Monash bioethics review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "What's in It for the Kid?": An Approach for the Bedside Ethicist.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Children with complex medical conditions including those with severe intellectual disability are living longer. For some, support with medical technology such as Long-Term Ventilation can prolong their lives further. Such technological supports can have significant implications for the child and her family and consume considerable resources though they can also offer real benefits. Sometimes clinicians question whether children with very severe cognitive impairments should have their life prolonged by technology, though they would be prepared to provide the same treatment in equivalent cases without cognitive disability. We describe and analyse four ways in which this view might be justified. Although it could be claimed that children with severe cognitive disability have lives that are not worth living, in most cases this view can and should be rejected. However, the burdens of life-prolonging technology may outweigh the benefits of such treatment either in the present or in the future. Consequently it might not be in their interests to provide such technology, or to ensure that it is provided as part of a time-limited trial. We also consider circumstances where medical technology could offer modest benefits to an individual, but resources are scarce. In the face of resource imitation, treatment may be prioritised to children who stand to benefit the most. This may in some circumstances, justify selectively withholding treatment from some medically complex children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.