TY - JOUR T1 - Drafting guidelines for the withholding or withdrawing of life sustaining treatment in critically ill children and neonates JF - Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition JO - Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed SP - F60 LP - F63 DO - 10.1136/fn.83.1.F60 VL - 83 IS - 1 AU - L Doyal AU - V F Larcher Y1 - 2000/07/01 UR - http://fn.bmj.com/content/83/1/F60.abstract N2 - In 1997, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) published a framework for practice on the withholding or withdrawing of life sustaining treatment. Based on sound ethical and legal principles, the purpose of the document was to offer guidance for those faced with difficult treatment decisions that could not be resolved by appeal to scientific fact alone.1 Unsurprisingly, the RCPCH document has attracted both acclaim and some criticism for its general objectives and specific conclusions.2 ,3 Any attempt to provide such guidance might be interpreted as applying unnecessary constraints to clinical practice. Furthermore, such documents can be criticised as being too general to be useful, stigmatising to some individuals or groups, and striking the wrong balance between law and morality. Although these criticisms have some validity, questions such as those dealt with by the RCPCH document and others cannot simply be left to the moral values of individual clinicians or their (possibly mistaken) interpretation of the law.4 Some considered advice—informed by appropriate collective multidisciplinary deliberation—is imperative. It seems likely, therefore, that other groups will wish to provide guidance or advice on ethico-legal matters. Here, we examine some of the problems they may face by considering the kind of guidance that is required, the appropriateness of standards set, the role of the law, and the relation between guidelines and the law.Many professionals want reasonably specific but not prescriptive guidance. Ethico-legal codes of professional practice, although emphasising communication skills, ethical behaviour, treating patients with dignity, and outlining legal boundaries of acceptable practice,5 ,6 may neither provide sufficiently specific guidance nor resolve some unanswered ambiguities. The latter include the criteria for determining a patient's best interests, as well as indications of appropriate procedures to follow in the case of disagreement between professionals and patients. … ER -