Ethical debate: The distinction between withdrawing life sustaining treatment under the influence of paralysing agents and euthanasia. Are we treading a fine line?

Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the ICU: A Dialogue on Core Ethical Issues

OBJECTIVE

Many patients are admitted to the ICU at or near the end of their lives. Consequently, the increasingly common debate regarding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia holds implications for the practice of critical care medicine. The objective of this article is to explore core ethical issues related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia from the perspective of healthcare professionals and ethicists on both sides of the debate.

SYNTHESIS

We identified four issues highlighting the key areas of ethical tension central to evaluating physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in medical practice: 1) the benefit or harm of death itself, 2) the relationship between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia and withholding or withdrawing life support, 3) the morality of a physician deliberately causing death, and 4) the management of conscientious objection related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the critical care setting. We present areas of common ground and important unresolved differences.

CONCLUSIONS

We reached differing positions on the first three core ethical questions and achieved unanimity on how critical care clinicians should manage conscientious objections related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The alternative positions presented in this article may serve to promote open and informed dialogue within the critical care community.

US Physicians' Opinions about Distinctions between Withdrawing and Withholding Life-Sustaining Treatment

Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment (LST) precede the majority of ICU deaths. Although professional guidelines generally treat the two as ethically equivalent, evidence suggests withdrawing LST is often more psychologically difficult than withholding it. The aim of the experiment was to investigate whether physicians are more supportive of withholding LST than withdrawing it and to assess how physicians' opinions are shaped by their religious characteristics, specialty, and experience caring for dying patients. In 2010, a survey was mailed to 2016 practicing US physicians. Physicians were asked whether physicians should always comply with a competent patient's request to withdraw LST, whether withdrawing LST is more psychologically difficult than withholding it, and whether withdrawing LST is typically more ethically problematic than withholding it. Of 1880 eligible physicians, 1156 responded to the survey (62%); 93% agreed that physicians should always comply with a competent patient's request to withdraw LST. More than half of the physicians reported that they find withdrawing LST more psychologically difficult than withholding it (61%), and that withdrawing LST is typically more ethically problematic (59%). Physician religiosity was associated with finding withdrawal more ethically problematic, but not with finding it more psychologically difficult. Physicians working in an end-of-life specialty and physicians with more experience caring for dying patients were less likely to endorse either a psychological or an ethical distinction between withdrawing and withholding LST. Most US physicians find withdrawing LST not only more psychologically difficult, but also more ethically problematic than withholding such treatment. Physicians' opinions are to some extent shaped by their religious characteristics, specialty, and levels of experience caring for dying patients.

Euthanasia and the Administration of Neuromuscular Blockers without Ventilation: Should Physicians Fear Prosecution?

A common dilemma among physicians who treat the dying is whether pharmacological paralysis should be reversed prior to removal of mechanical ventilation. But what if a physician were to administer a neuromuscular blocker without ever ventilating the patient in the first place? While there is evidence that euthanasia does occur in the United States, few physicians have been prosecuted. Could these infrequent prosecutions reflect a conscious desire by prosecutors not to pursue such matters? In an effort to explore this question, chief prosecutors in four U.S. states were presented with a vignette based on an actual event involving the administration of Succinylcholine to a dying patient. Response rates in this study were very acceptable (76.36% overall), and results indicated that not only was the likelihood of criminal prosecution low, almost half of the prosecutors believed that a physicianadministered lethal injection may be morally justified in some circumstances even though illegal.

Guidance for withdrawal and withholding of intensive care as part of neonatal end-of-life care

INTRODUCTION

Advances in foetal medicine and neonatology have enabled increased antenatal diagnosis of life-limiting conditions and improved preterm survival, escalating the debate surrounding the ethics of neonatal end-of-life care and withholding or withdrawing intensive care.

SOURCES OF DATA

Literature search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane library databases using the search terms [neonatal palliative care] AND [neonatal AND withdrawal of intensive care and treatment]. Review of consensus statements and guidelines.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

UK practice is aided by Grade 3-4 evidence, consensus statements and practice frameworks. There is limited systematic evidence.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

We illustrate UK practice with clinical cases and describe worldwide variations.

GROWING POINTS

Neonatal end-of-life care incorporating withholding and withdrawing intensive care is not uncommon. The child's 'best interests' take precedent and clinical guidance has been published to support the joint decision-making partnership of clinicians and families. Withholding and withdrawing intensive care should be part of an overall end-of-life care plan incorporating the principles and standards of palliative care.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

Further guidance on standards and staff training with regard to communicating and delivering neonatal end-of-life care is required to ensure consistent practice of staff and choices for families. The recommended establishment of neonatal outcome databases should aid UK preterm decision-making (NHS and Department of Health Neonatal Taskforce, Toolkit for high-quality neonatal services, London, Department of Health 2009).

Withdrawal of treatment in children

With advances in medical technology, many critically ill children will die following withdrawal of treatment rather than failed resuscitation attempts. Legally the parents are surrogate decision makers. The authors review the ethical, legal and practical aspects of withdrawal of treatment and the complex interactions between them.

Physicians' willingness to grant requests for assistance in dying for children: a study of hypothetical cases

OBJECTIVE

To study the willingness of Dutch physicians to use potentially life-shortening or lethal drugs for severely ill children.

STUDY DESIGN

We asked 63 pediatricians about their approach to 10 hypothetical cases of children with cancer. The age of the child (15, 11, or 6 years), the child's (explicit) request, and the opinion of the parents varied. Two hypothetical cases were also presented to 125 general practitioners and 208 clinical specialists.

RESULTS

Most pediatricians were willing to increase morphine in all cases. A total of 48% to 60% of pediatricians were willing to use lethal drugs in children at the child's request, when the parents agreed; when parents requested ending of life of their unconscious child, 37% to 42% of pediatricians were willing; 13% to 28% of pediatricians were willing when parents did not agree with their child's request. General practitioners and clinical specialists were as willing as pediatricians to use lethal drugs at the child's request, but less willing to grant a request of parents for their unconscious child.

CONCLUSIONS

Many Dutch pediatricians are willing to use potentially life-shortening or lethal drugs for children. The legal limit of 12 years, as the age under which voluntary euthanasia is forbidden, is not fully supported by Dutch physicians.

Should euthanasia be legal? An international survey of neonatal intensive care units staff

OBJECTIVE

To present the views of a representative sample of neonatal doctors and nurses in 10 European countries on the moral acceptability of active euthanasia and its legal regulation.

DESIGN

A total of 142 neonatal intensive care units were recruited by census (in the Netherlands, Sweden, Hungary, and the Baltic countries) or random sampling (in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom); 1391 doctors and 3410 nurses completed an anonymous questionnaire (response rates 89% and 86% respectively).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The staff opinion that the law in their country should be changed to allow active euthanasia "more than now".

RESULTS

Active euthanasia appeared to be both acceptable and practiced in the Netherlands, France, and to a lesser extent Lithuania, and less acceptable in Sweden, Hungary, Italy, and Spain. More then half (53%) of the doctors in the Netherlands, but only a quarter (24%) in France felt that the law should be changed to allow active euthanasia "more than now". For 40% of French doctors, end of life issues should not be regulated by law. Being male, regular involvement in research, less than six years professional experience, and having ever participated in a decision of active euthanasia were positively associated with an opinion favouring relaxation of legal constraints. Having had children, religiousness, and believing in the absolute value of human life showed a negative association. Nurses were slightly more likely to consider active euthanasia acceptable in selected circumstances, and to feel that the law should be changed to allow it more than now.

CONCLUSIONS

Opinions of health professionals vary widely between countries, and, even where neonatal euthanasia is already practiced, do not uniformly support its legalisation.

Circumstances surrounding end of life in a pediatric intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 60% of deaths in pediatric intensive care units follow limitation or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (LST). We aimed to describe the circumstances surrounding decision making and end-of-life care in this setting.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, descriptive study based on a survey with the intensivist after every consecutive death during an 8-month period in a single multidisciplinary pediatric intensive care unit. Summary statistics are presented as percentage, mean +/- standard deviation, or median and range; data are compared using the Mantel-Haenszel test and shown as survival curves.

RESULTS

Of the 99 observed deaths, 27 involved failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation; of the remaining 72, 39 followed withdrawal/limitation (W/LT) of LST, 20 were do not resuscitate (DNR), and 13 were brain deaths (BDs). Families initiated discussions about forgoing LST in 24% (17 of 72) of cases. Consensus between caregivers and staff about forgoing LST as the best approach was reached after the first meeting with 51% (35 of 68) of families; 46% (31 of 68) required >or=2 meetings (4 not reported). In the DNR group, the median time to death after consensus was 24 hours and for W/LT was 3 hours. LST was later withdrawn in 11 of 20 DNR cases. The family was present in 76% (45 of 59) of cases when LST was forgone. The dying patient was held by the family in 78% (35 of 45) of these occasions.

CONCLUSIONS

More than 1 formal meeting was required to reach consensus with families about forgoing LST in almost half of the patients. Families often held their child at the time of death. The majority of children died quickly after the end-of-life decision was made.

Gender biases in decisions on euthanasia among Swedish jurors

The present study set out to investigate whether group-based biases may influence decisions regarding euthanasia in Swedish jurors (nämndemän). Thirty-eight Swedish jurors were presented with a case description of euthanasia in a severely brain-damaged patient. Age and gender of the patient were systematically varied. The jurors were asked to what extent they believed that euthanasia was ethical in the case presented to them and whether they thought that it should be legal. Jurors tended to be supportive of euthanasia and were more so when it was used on patients who belonged to the opposite gender. These results suggest that group-based biases may influence decisions regarding euthanasia in Swedish jurors. The finding has implication for the Swedish debate regarding a possible legalization of such procedures.

Neuromuscular blockers--a means of palliation?

As we die, our respiratory pattern is altered and we seem to gasp and struggle for each breath. Such gasping is commonly seen as a clear sign of dyspnoea and suffering by families and loved ones, however, it is unclear whether it is perceived at all by the dying person. Narcotics and sedatives do not seem to affect these gasping respirations. In this issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics, we are asked to consider whether the last gasp of a dying patient could be or, perhaps, even should be avoided by administering neuromuscular blockers to palliate dying patients. For many reasons, such as our current failure to alleviate pain and distress, stories of inadequate analgesia and sedation in critically ill paralysed patients and the inability to know the intent-whether to palliate or to euthanise-it would seem that administering neuromuscular blockers should not be ethically permissible.