I'll preface this review by saying that I am a physician. I know that elsewhere health care providers have been criticized for not knowing new statistics, etc. I will admit that I don't know the latest statistics. I have had recent (within the last year) experience caring for infants with HLHS. Some of those children have died; others are doing well. A previous reviewer wrote that you cannot create a whole heart out of half a heart. That is true; the best we can do is offer temporizing measures. But hey, sometimes the temporizing measures can last a couple decades-really not too bad. (By comparison, the lifespan of a coronary bypass graft is somewhere around 10 years-admittedly a ballpark but you get my point.) However, even some of the best centers quote a 25% mortality rate (as of Feb 2005). The children that survive remain medically fragile (we all have stories of children-usually between the first and second stage surgeries when they're particularly vulnerable-go from fine to dead in a matter of minutes.) Neurologic complications occur with some frequency and can be devastating. Survivors often go on to need a heart transplant-for which demand greatly exceeds supply. I cannot fault parents for choosing aggressive surgical therapy-I have a hard time looking at a perfect looking newborn and NOT doing everything possible to save her. At the same time, I cannot help but understand why equally loving parents would choose comfort care. Someone earlier said that children/parents living years later would not consider the surgeries torture: those are people whose children have survived to see the other side. I don't know what the parents of children who didn't survive the first surgeries would say. On the front end, with such high risk and no promise of success, it seems fairly natural that someone would wonder if it wouldn't be kinder to allow the child to live a short life surrounded by family and die peacefully. On the one hand is the only hope of survival accompanied by substantial risks of disability (physical or cognitive), many invasive procedures which may be painful, a not insubstantial risk of death at any stage and an uncertain (although apparently improving more and more) future at the end of successful operations. On the other hand, death is certain, but the pain and suffering and the uncertainty that paves the other road can be avoided.
When it comes down to it, I think it's a question of one's world view-whether or not one believes in God, in life after death, in whether there are things worse than death and what those things are, and how much faith one puts in medical advances and abilities. Many health care providers probably underestimate the benefits of medical care (ask one when they last felt like they actually saved someone's life-I can think of maybe two in the last five years) Some providers overestimate the benefits and underestimate the risks. Sometimes hopeful patients overestimate the pace and scope of medical advances. The truth lies likely somewhere in between.
As for the book, which is after all the point of a book review. I respect greatly the physicians who offered the family the option of comfort care, because I know that they did not do so lightly. I respect Amy and her family for doing the best they could do to make an informed and loving decision for their son. It took courage to reach that choice, courage to carry the pregnancy to term. Courage to be helpless. Even more so, courage and love to so transparently share their experience with us in this book. I am not a mother. I strongly suspect that I would not handle either choice well, that I would be too self-protective to allow myself to really love a child with that much uncertainty in their life. It was costly to love Gabriel, every bit of love and joy was accompanied by pain. By sharing their story, I hope they are able to help others who must face similar circumstances.