Howe v. MGH and Hudson v. Texas Children's Hospital: two approaches to resolving family-physician disputes in end-of-life care

A critical review of the factors leading to cardiopulmonary resuscitation as the default position of hospitalized patients in the USA regardless of severity of illness

BACKGROUND

Physicians are occasionally faced with patients requesting full resuscitation against medical advice. More commonly, neither patients nor their family members make such a request, but physicians simply presume that providing cardiopulmonary resuscitation comports with the patient's wishes. In the USA, in contrast to other countries, a unilateral Do-Not-Resuscitate order by the physician is either forbidden by State Statute or not enforced by hospital policy. Unless otherwise specified, performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on all hospitalized patients, regardless of the severity of the underlying illness, is the default position. Unlike other medical interventions, no deference is given to the medical judgment of the physician even when a patient is in the last days of a terminal illness. We examine the factors that have led to cardiopulmonary resuscitation having this unique status.

MAIN BODY

A review of the historical factors leading to cardiopulmonary resuscitation as the default position was undertaken. Articles published in the medical literature, lay-press articles, legislative enactments of law, and judicial opinions involving the issue of Do-Not-Resuscitate and cardiopulmonary resuscitation were reviewed regarding their impact on physician and hospital practice in the USA.

CONCLUSION

A critical review of the historical factors reveals that the rapid dissemination of cardiopulmonary training for the public, inaccuracies in the media regarding successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation, well-meaning legislative efforts with inadvertent consequences, and judicial interpretation outside the generally accepted concept of malpractice law have contributed to the situation faced by today's physicians and hospitals in the USA.

Compassion and mercy are not helpful in resolving intractable family-physician conflicts on end-of-life care

"Compassion and mercy" are important values for humanizing medicine. There are limits, however, in their ability to help resolve disputes between physicians and families regarding appropriate end-of-life care. The recent cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans in England highlight the issue. The English courts resolve such conflicts by an independent assessment of a court. The American judicial system does not share the centralized system of the English courts. In the United States Federal structure some 50 state legislatures and 50 state court systems go their separate ways. The result is differing, frequently conflicting, standards. We explore possible ways to avoid court involvement in the American context for resolving such disputes within the patient-physician relationship.

“Brain Death,” “Dead,” and Parental Denial

This section provides reactions to current and emerging issues in bioethics.

Ethical issues in the care of the neurologically devastated infant

The debate surrounding neurologically devastated newborns, whether due to severe prematurity or genetic malformations, has continued for over 40 years. Duff and Campbell (1973) first discussed allowing these children to die in the 1970s. In the 1980s, others fought to make sure these children with disabilities were afforded all the rights of other children. Recently, some commentators have advocated for withdrawal of therapies and even euthanasia in the Netherlands. Who is right? What are the ethical principles that should be followed? What decisions are appropriate for distraught parents to make? This chapter reviews international views, laws, and guidelines surrounding the therapies and limitations of care for these imperiled newborns. An ethical argument is presented for how to determine best interests for these special children utilizing the best interest standard. Parents and physicians need to use their individual expertise and values to work together to determine each individual child's best interests. Physicians may have to carry the burden for making final determinations to alleviate the guilt families may have in deciding to limit therapies.

The History of Ethical Decision Making in Neonatal Intensive Care

Neonatal ethics has focused on 2 questions: is withholding potentially live-saving treatment from neonates ethically justified? and if so, who has the authority to decide? This article details how these questions developed and provides a description of the possible answers. In the first section, we review a selection of seminal articles by noted authors in the fields of ethics, medicine, and law. The second section provides a detailed account of the development of the Baby Doe Regulations and the impact they had on neonatal ethics, with particular attention to the emergence of the Best Interest Standard as a guideline for decision making. In the last section, we review the landmark position statements by the American Academy of Pediatric (AAP), and the focus on evidence-based decision making. We conclude that forgoing life-saving treatment is ethically justified. However, this requires a rigorous evidence-based process and is limited by the Best Interest Standard. The second question is more difficult to answer, but we feel that in light of legal limitations, physicians acting as both the infant advocate and a proxy for the state, decide what falls in the range of acceptable treatment options, with the parents free to choose within that range.