Decisions to Withhold or Terminate Treatment

Lotteries, loopholes and luck: misdiagnosis in the vegetative state patient

Many factors contribute to the alarmingly high rates of misdiagnosis in the Vegetative State (VS) patient. These include the differential diagnosis and definitions, inconsistencies in the assessors' knowledge, expertise and their approaches to the assessment of awareness. Variability in the patient's medical and physical management adds to this confusion, leading to the potential to misdiagnose an aware patient in Minimally Conscious State (MCS) as being in VS. Subsequently, this range of variables leads to inconsistencies in the assessment, clinical diagnosis and management of this patient group. This concept is clearly of great importance in terms of the patient's future management and life or death decisions when considering withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. Further exploration of the frequency and causes of misdiagnosis and a review of current guidelines will illustrate the potential loopholes in diagnosis and reveal possible solutions to this modern-day dilemma.

Decision tools for life support: a review and policy analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify, describe, and compare published documents intended to guide decisions about the administration, withholding, or withdrawal of life support in critical care.

DESIGN

Review article. SETTING AND SOURCES: Publicly available, English-language guidelines or decision tools for life support, identified through systematic literature search.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Forty-nine documents were included and coded for authorship, source, development methodology, format, and positions taken on 12 common life-support issues. Sources were independent academics (n=21, 43%), professional organizations (n=19, 44%), and provider organizations. Eighteen documents (37%) described no development method. Twenty-three (47%) were produced collectively (e.g., by committees or consensus conference), 7 (14%) mentioned a literature review, and 2 (4%) were based upon the author's professional experience. Tools differed in format and focus; we characterize three types as decision schemas (involving clinical practice algorithms; n=7, 14%), decision guides (reviewing legal or professional positions; n=29, 59%), and decision counsels (more discursive and focusing typically on ethical issues; n=13, 27%). Tools addressed 12 common life-support issues: advance directives (67%), resource considerations (51%), ICU discharge criteria (27%), ICU admission criteria (16%), whether withholding differs from withdrawing life support (59%), whether nutrition and hydration decisions are different from decisions about other types of life support (61%), euthanasia (49%), double effect (47%), brain death (35%), special considerations for patients in a persistent vegetative state (51%), potential organ donors (12%), and pregnant patients (10%). Positions on these key life-support issues varied.

CONCLUSIONS

Published tools for guiding life-support decisions vary widely in their genesis, authorship, format, focus, and practicality. They also differ in their attention to, and positions on, key life-support dilemmas. Future research on decision tools should focus on how users interpret and apply the messages in these tools and their impacts on practice, quality of care, participant experiences, and outcomes.

Measuring attitudes toward euthanasia

The development of a measure assessing attitudes toward euthanasia is presented, where data gathered from over 400 young adults yielded a thirty item Likert scale with high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Additionally, the discriminant validity of the scale was found in comparisons of those with death-related versus non-death-related experiences.

Euthanasia and persistent vegetative state individuals: the role and moral status of autonomy

This paper offers a philosophical consideration and evaluation of several different criteria of moral standing, and discusses their implications for persistent vegetative state (PVS) individuals who were once competent. It is argued that the only criterion PVS individuals meet is that of being human, which is not the best test of moral standing. Accordingly it is, in principle, morally acceptable to perform passive or active euthanasia on PVS individuals or to use their bodies for research or for organ harvest. Nevertheless, the autonomous choices made by the persons the PVS individuals used to be can still impose moral obligations. Indeed, it is argued that the capacity for autonomy is a particularly appealing criterion of moral standing, and that the implications of this standard for PVS individuals confirm that appeal.

Life expectancy of children in a persistent vegetative state

The persistent vegetative state (PVS) is a state of wakeful unconsciousness occurring in adults and children. Despite preservation of vegetative functions, PVS patients have a shortened life-span, although accurate information concerning this issue remains limited. The survival of children in PVS was examined to determine whether age, etiology of the vegetative state, or type of residence in which the patient lived affected the estimated survival. The data of 155,851 developmentally disabled California state residents were reviewed using the Client Development Evaluation Report (CDER). Criteria from the CDER were selected to define the vegetative state and included: lack of interaction with peers; absence of auditory, visual, and expressive or receptive language function; no hand or arm use; inability to eat, sit, roll over, or lift head; and no bowel or bladder control. There were 847 patients who met these criteria on the initial and follow-up CDERs. A product limit survival model was used to develop survival curves and to calculate the median survival time for patients grouped by age, etiology, and type of residence. Median survival (yrs) for patients who remained in PVS for the following age groups was: < 1 yr: 2.6, 1 < 2 yrs: 4.2, 2-6 yrs: 5.2, 7-18 yrs: 7.0, > or = 19 yrs: 9.9. Median survival based on etiology varied from 3.0 to 8.6 years; no consistent relationship existed between etiology and duration of survival. Survival (yrs) for patients younger than age 18 years based on type of residence included: own home: 4.5, institutions: 5.2, skilled nursing facility/private hospital: 3.2, and other community care facilities: 3.7.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)