If We Think It’s Futile, Can’t We Just Say No?

'I just need an opiate refill to get me through the weekend'

In this article, we discuss the ethical dimensions for the prescribing behaviours of opioids for a chronic pain patient, a scenario commonly witnessed by many physicians. The opioid epidemic in the USA and Canada is well known, existing since the late 1990s, and individuals are suffering and dying as a result of the easy availability of prescription opioids. More recently, this problem has been seen outside of North America affecting individuals at similar rates in Australia and Europe. We argue that physicians are also confronted with an ethical crisis where a capitalist-consumerist society is contributing to this opioid crisis in which societal, legal and business interests push physicians to overprescribe opioids. Individual physicians often find themselves unequipped and unsupported in attempts to curb the prescribing of opioid medications and balance competing goals of alleviating pain against the judicious use of pain medications. Physicians, individually and as a community, must reclaim the ethical mantle of our profession, through a more nuanced understanding of autonomy and beneficence. Furthermore, physicians and the medical community at large have a fiduciary duty to patients and society to play a more active role in curbing the widespread distribution of opioids in our communities.

Decisions regarding forgoing life-sustaining treatments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Decisions to forego life-sustaining treatments are complex, and disagreements between physicians and patients occur. This review discusses recent findings regarding what factors influence physicians and patients or their surrogates in these decisions and considers whether futility arguments regarding life-sustaining treatments should be abandoned.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is one paradigm in the literature for studying end-of-life decision-making. Outcomes for cardiopulmonary resuscitation are poor, and physicians tend to over-rely on tacit versus evidence-based knowledge for resuscitation decisions. Physician decisions are often inherently biased regarding elderly and intellectually impaired patients. Patient decisions regarding life-sustaining treatments are poorly understood by physicians, and also include inherent bias against the elderly and intellectually impaired. Although patients and their decision-makers frequently incorporate religious or spiritual beliefs in their decisions, physicians rarely discuss these factors with them. Defining 'futility' is problematic, and futility arguments have limited utility in clinical end-of-life treatment discussions.

SUMMARY

Further research is needed about factors that affect both physicians and patients with regard to forgoing life-sustaining interventions. Physicians need more information regarding religious/spiritual preferences of patients and decision-makers. 'Futility' arguments in end-of-life decision-making are flawed and should probably be abandoned.

Reason-Giving and Medical Futility: Contrasting Legal and Social Discourse in the United States With the United Kingdom and Ontario, Canada

Disputes regarding life-prolonging treatments are stressful for all parties involved. These disagreements are appropriately almost always resolved with intensive communication and negotiation. Those rare cases that are not require a resolution process that ensures fairness and due process. We describe three recent cases from different countries (the United States, United Kingdom, and Ontario, Canada) to qualitatively contrast the legal responses to intractable, policy-level disputes regarding end-of-life care in each of these countries. In so doing, we define the continuum of clinical and social utility among different types of dispute resolution processes and emphasize the importance of public reason-giving in the societal discussion regarding policy-level solutions to end-of-life treatment disputes. We argue that precedential, publicly available, written rulings for these decisions most effectively help to move the social debate forward in a way that is beneficial to clinicians, patients, and citizens. This analysis highlights the lack of such rulings within the United States.

Quality assurance and assessment in pain management

Relief from pain is itself a marker of high-quality medical care. Quality assurance in the case of pain management could simply mean successful elimination of pain. Because the means of controlling pain are imperfect, it is essential to consider whether pain interventions actually achieve the primary goal of pain relief and also whether they are safe, cost-effective, and even capable of producing secondary benefits such as early recovery from surgery. Quality assurance and assessment in pain management therefore becomes a complex undertaking that must incorporate into its processes the often-conflicting goals of comfort versus safety versus patients' rights.

How I conduct the family meeting to discuss the limitation of life-sustaining interventions: a recipe for success

The meeting with the family of a hospitalized patient dying with advanced cancer or hematologic disease in which the limitation of life-sustaining interventions is discussed can be a challenge, particularly for junior physicians. A successful conclusion to this discussion involves an outcome in which the family, without coercion or manipulation, comes to accept that the appropriate care has been provided to their loved one, while the caregivers are enabled to provide care that is goal-directed and patient-centered. This type of result can be achieved through an approach in which patient-focused recommendations are offered in the context of diligent efforts to establish and sustain trust, thoughtful preparation, and respectful discussions with the family.

End-of-life ethics and disability: differing perspectives on case-based teaching

The way in which medical professionals engage in bioethical issues ultimately reflects the type of care such patients are likely to receive. It is therefore critical for doctors and other health care professionals to have a broad understanding of disability. Our purpose in this paper is to explore ways of teaching bioethical issues to first year medical students by integrating alternative approaches. Such approaches include (a) the use of the narrative format, (b) the inclusion of a disability perspective, and (c) the presentation and facilitation of classes by people with disabilities. We consider how these new kinds of presentations are evaluated by students, faculty, people with disabilities and professional ethicists. We hope new knowledge may provide health care professionals with a greater understanding of the perspectives of patients with disabilities, who are confronted by conflicting ethical values and frameworks for decision-making in their interaction with such professionals.