Evaluation of General Sources

All medical professionals have limits to the measures they can take when treating a patient. Neonatal nursing, doctoring the most fragile, tiny humans is no exception to this. And as the patients cannot verbally express their reactions to pain, the controversial question is asked: Is neonatal nursing ethical? In this blog, I will analyze two internet sources which discuss this controversy.

Kowalczyk, Matt. "Emma in NICU" 11/20/2007 via flickr Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 Generic License.

Source 1

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of 'Neonatal ICU Issues' Article." 9/4/2015 via UW Departments Web Server.

URL
The first article can be found at http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/nicu.html. The ending .edu implies that this article is the work of an educational institution. This source in particular is connected to the University of Washington School of Medicine. This is a good indication that the source is credible. A university as an educational institution is a very reliable source for information.

Author
Two authors are credited: Andrew C. Beckstrom (MD) and David E. Woodrum (MD). The authors associate themselves with the University of Washington. Further investigation reveals that Andrew C. Beckstrom is a Neonatal Medicine Specialist and doctor at Highline Medical Center.

David E. Woodrum is also a doctor and Neonatal Medicine Specialist and has worked at the Seattle's Children Hospital for forty-four years.

Last Updated
The article was last modified March 14, 2014.

Purpose
This article brusquely defines the two schools of thought on the controversy. They provide graphs and two exemplary cases. The article is formatted in a question and answer layout. The authors present a question related to the controversy, and proceed to answer in defense of neonatal nursing.

The purpose of this article (written by two Neonatal Medicine Specialists) is to defend the profession. Though they are defending their own profession, they avoid any strong bias by intelligently answering the most dire questions against the ethics of Neonatology.

Graphics
Two charts are provided outlining what is defined as the "primary justification" of the continued existence of Neonatal care units. It emphasizes the benefits that the neonatal profession has had on such circumstances, underlining the reduced death rates. This is definitely meant to flatter the profession.

Additionally, they provide two case examples and links to other sources in order to further justify their viewings.

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of Neonatal Statistics Chart." 9/4/2015 via UW Departments Web Server. 

Position on Subject
The article is in support of the neonatal occupation, recognizing the ethical questions, though discrediting them. As both authors are specialists in Neonatal Medicine, they very intelligently express their support of the field. This could suggest a bias; however, the authors do not avoid any questions that are considered most unflattering and in favor of discrediting the neonatal field.

Links
Many links are provided. In reference to the question of who makes the decisions when an at risk infant is born, readers are referred to a Parental Decision Making Guide. They also have very broad links to Additional Reading, Related Websites, and a core clerkship material guide for Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Source 2

Bohland, Alyssa. "Screenshot of 'Ethical Issues in Neonatal Care' Article." 9/4/2015 via Medscape.

URL
The first article can be found at http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/978997-overview#a6. This .com url cannot be considered as reliable as the first source, though (as we will see) the author is similarly credible. The .com url is much less trustworthy, as almost any type of content can be labeled under it.


Author
Brian S. Carter (MD) is the credited author. He is a Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine. Brian S. Carter is also a doctor at the Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas, which has been awarded as the "Best Children's Hospital" in ten different specialties (including neonatology) for 2015.

Last Updated
The article was last updated January 16th, 2015.

Purpose
This article clarifies the different points of the controversy. The author informs readers about why there is an ethical debate in the profession. It is neither promoting nor demoting the field, simply stating the facts in a clear and concise manner, leaving readers to their own assumptions and conclusions.

Graphics
There are no graphics included in this article. The author is not trying to stir the controversy, simply state the facts.

Position on the Subject
This article remains an unbiased source of the controversy. It is thorough, complete and organized. The author and his affiliates confirm that this is a credible source. Medscape, the source of the article, is a reliable informant for anything medical related.

Links
There are links throughout the article which lead you to informant articles also on Medscape. They most commonly appear on medical terms, which are fully defined on the pages they are linked to.