Judicial intervention in medical decision-making: a failure of the medical system?

[Limitation of therapeutic effort in Paediatric Intensive Care Units: Bioethical knowledge and attitudes of the medical profession]

Paediatric intensive care is a relatively new specialty, with significant technological advances that lead to the prolongation of the dying process. One of the most common bioethical problems is limitation of treatment, which is the adequacy and/or proportionality treatment, trying to avoid obstinacy and futility.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the experience of physicians working in Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU) when faced with bioethical decisions.

SUBJECTS AND METHOD

An observational, descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted using an anonymous questionnaire sent to physicians working in PICU. The data requested was related to potential ethical problems generated in the care of the critical child, and the procedure for their resolution. The study was approved by the Ethics Research Committee of the Faculty of Medicine UDD CAS.

RESULTS

A total of 126 completed questionnaires were received from physicians working in 34 PICU in Chile. Almost all (98.41%) of them acknowledged having taken therapeutic limitation decisions (TLD). The most common type of TLD mentioned was the Do Not Resuscitate order (n=119), followed by the establishment of no medications (n=113), limited admission to PICU (n=81), with the withdrawal of treatment being the least mentioned (n=81). Around one-third (34.13%) felt that there were no ethical difference between introducing or removing certain treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Bioethical dilemmas are common in the PICU, with therapeutic limitation decisions being frequent. Many recognise not having expertise in clinical ethics, and they need continuing education in bioethics.

End-of-life family conferences: rooted in the evidence

Critical care clinicians no longer consider family members as visitors in the intensive care unit. Family-centered care has emerged from the results of qualitative and quantitative studies evaluating the specific needs of families of patients dying in the intensive care unit. In addition, interventional studies have established that intensive and proactive communication empowers family members of dying patients, helping them to share in discussions and decisions, if they so wish. In addition to intensive communication, interventional studies have highlighted the role of nurses, social workers, and palliative care teams in reducing family burden, avoiding futile life-sustaining therapies, and providing effective comfort care. End-of-life family conferences are formal, structured meetings between intensivists and family members. Guidelines for organizing these conferences take into account the specific needs of families, including reassurance that the patient's symptoms will be adequately managed; honest clear information about the patient's condition and treatment; a willingness on the part of physicians to listen and respond to family members and to address their emotions; attention to patient preferences; clear explanations about surrogate decision making; and continuous, compassionate, and technically proficient attention to the patient's needs until death occurs. Means of improving end-of-life care have been identified in epidemiologic and interventional studies. End-of-life family conferences constitute the keystone around which excellent end-of-life care can be built.

[Ethical attitudes in Spanish pediatric critical care units]

OBJECTIVES

To assess physicians' awareness and experience of ethical problems that arise when dealing with critically ill children in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Questionnaires containing 20 questions about ethical dilemmas and attitudes related to the care of children admitted to PICUs were mailed to 43 PICUs in Spain.

RESULTS

Ninety-five responses corresponding to 24 residents and 71 attending physicians were received from 21 PICUs. The occurrence of ethical dilemmas in the PICU was recognized by 96.8 % of the respondents. The most frequent method of solving these problems was through medical consensus (80 %), while family participation in the decision making process was highly variable. A total of 95.8 % of respondents stated that decisions to limit therapy were made in their PICU, although only one third of these decisions were written in the medical record. The most frequent form of therapeutic limitation was the do not resuscitate order. One third (32.6 %) of participants considered there were ethical differences between withdrawal and withholding of treatment. Attending physicians had greater experience of therapeutic limitation than did residents, but their opinions on the subject were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Ethical dilemmas are common in the PICU. In this setting, decisions about limitation of therapy are frequent, although many physicians admit to not being clear on this issue or on other aspects of clinical ethics. Family members' participation in the decision making process is insufficient in Spanish PICUs.

"There is power in the blood": a case discussing ethical issues of utility of resources

The allocation of medical resources is often a great concern in the United States. This article discusses a case concerning utility of resources in a patient with a terminal disease. We assert that the goals of treatment tailored to an individual patient should be made at the bedside by a fiduciary (physician) in conjunction with the patient's preferences and values. There is great responsibility in making these decisions and it is critical that they be made at the bedside with the patient and family clearly aware of the goals of treatments and informed of treatment limitations.

When surrogate decision-making is not straightforward. Guidelines for nurse administrators

When ethical or pragmatic questions arise concerning surrogate decision-making, nurse administrators often are consulted, so they must be knowledgeable about current legislation as well as the surrogate decision-maker's role and ethical obligations. Case exemplars are presented in this article to facilitate the reader's awareness on how value conflicts and communication failures can complicate surrogate decision-making. Recommendations for clinical practice and research are presented.

A prospective study of the impact of patient preferences on life-sustaining treatment and hospital cost

OBJECTIVES

Ethicists advise that life-sustaining treatment decisions should be made in keeping with patient preferences. Until recently, there has been little systematic study of the impact of patient preferences on the use of various life-sustaining treatments or the consequent cost of hospital care. This prospective study was designed to answer the following questions: a) Do patient treatment preferences about the use of life-sustaining treatment influence the treatments they receive? and b) Do patient treatment preferences influence the total cost of their hospitalization?

DESIGN

A prospective, cohort study.

SETTING

A university teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Hospitalized patients, at least 50 yrs of age, with short life expectancy due to end-stage heart, lung, or liver disease, metastatic cancer, or lymphoma.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients were interviewed to determine their desire for life-sustaining treatment and other characteristics and then were followed for 6 months to determine life-sustaining treatment use and costs during hospitalization. Two hundred forty-four patients were interviewed. Fifty-eight percent of patients expressed a desire for life-sustaining treatments to prolong life for 1 wk. During 245 subsequent hospitalizations, there were 20 episodes of mechanical ventilation, 63 episodes of intensive care, and 66 cancer treatments given. Bivariate and multivariate analyses showed no significant association between patient desire to receive treatment to prolong life and either life-sustaining treatment use (p = .59) or hospital costs (p = .20).

CONCLUSION

In a university teaching hospital setting, there is no systematic evidence that patient preferences determine life-sustaining treatment use or hospital costs.