Predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in intensive care units in Singapore: a multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines on limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU), in the form of withholding or withdrawal of LST, state that there is no ethical difference between the two. Such statements are not uniformly accepted worldwide, and there are few studies on LST limitation in Asia. This study aimed to evaluate the predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of LST in Singapore, focusing on the similarities and differences between the two approaches.

METHODS

This was a multicentre observational study of patients admitted to 21 adult ICUs across 9 public hospitals in Singapore over an average of three months per year from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome measures were withholding and withdrawal of LST (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors/inotropes). The secondary outcome measure was hospital mortality. Multivariable generalised mixed model analysis was used to identify independent predictors for withdrawal and withholding of LST and if LST limitation predicts hospital mortality.

RESULTS

There were 8907 patients and 9723 admissions. Of the former, 80.8% had no limitation of LST, 13.0% had LST withheld, and 6.2% had LST withdrawn. Common independent predictors for withholding and withdrawal were increasing age, absence of chronic kidney dialysis, greater dependence in activities of daily living, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before ICU admission, higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and higher level of care in the first 24 h of ICU admission. Additional predictors for withholding included being of Chinese race, the religions of Hinduism and Islam, malignancy, and chronic liver failure. The additional predictor for withdrawal was lower hospital paying class (with greater government subsidy for hospital bills). Hospital mortality in patients without LST limitation, with LST withholding, and with LST withdrawal was 10.6%, 82.1%, and 91.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Withholding (odds ratio 13.822, 95% confidence interval 9.987-19.132) and withdrawal (odds ratio 38.319, 95% confidence interval 24.351-60.298) were both found to be independent predictors of hospital mortality on multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in the independent predictors of withholding and withdrawal of LST exist. Even after accounting for baseline characteristics, both withholding and withdrawal of LST independently predict hospital mortality. Later mortality in patients who had LST withdrawn compared to withholding suggests that the decision to withdraw may be at the point when medical futility is recognised.

Factors associated with limitation of life support: Post-ICU mortality case study of a tertiary hospital

BACKGROUND

Life-sustaining treatment limitation (LSV) is the medical act of withdrawing or not initiating measures that are considered futile in a patient's specific situation. LSV in critically ill patients remains a difficult topic to study, due to the multitude of factors that condition it.

OBJECTIVE

To determine factors related to LSV in ICU in cases of post-ICU in-hospital mortality, as well as factors associated with survival after discharge from ICU.

DESIGN

Retrospective longitudinal study.

AMBIT

Intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital.

PATIENTS

People who died in the hospitalization ward after ICU treatment between January 2014 and December 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

None. This is an observational study.

VARIABLES OF INTEREST

Age, sex, probability of death, type of admission, LSV in ICU, oncological disease, dependence, invasive mechanical ventilation, emergency hemodialysis, transfusion of blood products, nosocomial infection (NI), pre-ICU, intra-ICU and post-ICU stays.

RESULTS

Of 114 patients who died outside the ICU, 49 had LSV registered in the ICU (42.98%). Age and stay prior to ICU admission were positively associated with LSV (OR 1,03 and 1,08, respectively). Patients without LSV had a higher post-ICU stay, while it was lower for male patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support that LSV established within the ICU can avoid complications commonly associated with unnecessary prolongation of stay, such as NI.

Limiting life-sustaining treatment for very old ICU patients: cultural challenges and diverse practices

BACKGROUND

Decisions about life-sustaining therapy (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU) depend on predictions of survival as well as the expected functional capacity and self-perceived quality of life after discharge, especially in very old patients. However, prognostication for individual patients in this cohort is hampered by substantial uncertainty which can lead to a large variability of opinions and, eventually, decisions about LST. Moreover, decision-making processes are often embedded in a framework of ethical and legal recommendations which may vary between countries resulting in divergent management strategies.

METHODS

Based on a vignette scenario of a multi-morbid 87-year-old patient, this article illustrates the spectrum of opinions about LST among intensivsts with a special interest in very old patients, from ten countries/regions, representing diverse cultures and healthcare systems.

RESULTS

This survey of expert opinions and national recommendations demonstrates shared principles in the management of very old ICU patients. Some guidelines also acknowledge cultural differences between population groups. Although consensus with families should be sought, shared decision-making is not formally required or practised in all countries.

CONCLUSIONS

This article shows similarities and differences in the decision-making for LST in very old ICU patients and recommends strategies to deal with prognostic uncertainty. Conflicts should be anticipated in situations where stakeholders have different cultural beliefs. There is a need for more collaborative research and training in this field.

The role of clinical phenotypes in decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment for very old patients in the ICU

BACKGROUND

Limiting life-sustaining treatment (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU) by withholding or withdrawing interventional therapies is considered appropriate if there is no expectation of beneficial outcome. Prognostication for very old patients is challenging due to the substantial biological and functional heterogeneity in that group. We have previously identified seven phenotypes in that cohort with distinct patterns of acute and geriatric characteristics. This study investigates the relationship between these phenotypes and decisions to limit LST in the ICU.

METHODS

This study is a post hoc analysis of the prospective observational VIP2 study in patients aged 80 years or older admitted to ICUs in 22 countries. The VIP2 study documented demographic, acute and geriatric characteristics as well as organ support and decisions to limit LST in the ICU. Phenotypes were identified by clustering analysis of admission characteristics. Patients who were assigned to one of seven phenotypes (n = 1268) were analysed with regard to limitations of LST.

RESULTS

The incidence of decisions to withhold or withdraw LST was 26.5% and 8.1%, respectively. The two phenotypes describing patients with prominent geriatric features and a phenotype representing the oldest old patients with low severity of the critical condition had the largest odds for withholding decisions. The discriminatory performance of logistic regression models in predicting limitations of LST after admission to the ICU was the best after combining phenotype, ventilatory support and country as independent variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical phenotypes on ICU admission predict limitations of LST in the context of cultural norms (country). These findings can guide further research into biases and preferences involved in the decision-making about LST. Trial registration Clinical Trials NCT03370692 registered on 12 December 2017.

Withdrawing and Withholding Life-Sustaining Medical Therapies in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: Case-Based Approaches to Clinical Controversies

In cases whereby the continuation of life-sustaining medical therapies is not in the infant's best interest and does not align with the parents' goals, it is ethically and morally advisable to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining medical therapies. Withdrawing/withholding artificial nutrition hydration is not morally or ethically different from other medical treatments. Determination of what and when to withdraw should occur through shared decision-making considering the parents' values and the infant's physiology and comfort. The practice of physician recommendations followed by parental informed nondissent should be considered in these instances.

Attitudes about withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and physician assisted suicide: a cross-sectional survey among the general public in Croatia

BACKGROUND

There has been no in-depth research of public attitudes on withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment, euthanasia, assisted suicide and physician assisted suicide in Croatia. The aim of this study was to examine these attitudes and their correlation with sociodemographic characteristics, religion, political orientation, tolerance of personal choice, trust in physicians, health status, experiences with death and caring for the seriously ill, and attitudes towards death and dying.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted on a three-stage random sample of adult citizens of the Republic of Croatia, stratified by regions, counties, and locations within those counties (N = 1203). In addition to descriptive statistics, ANOVA and Chi-square tests were used to determine differences, and factor analysis (component model, varimax rotation and GK dimensionality reduction criterion), correlation analysis (Bivariate correlation, Pearson's coefficient) and multiple regression analysis for data analysis.

RESULTS

38.1% of the respondents agree with granting the wishes of dying people experiencing extreme and unbearable suffering, and withholding life-prolonging treatment, and 37.8% agree with respecting the wishes of such people, and withdrawing life-prolonging treatment. 77% of respondents think that withholding and withdrawing procedures should be regulated by law because of the fear of abuse. Opinions about the practice and regulation of euthanasia are divided. Those who are younger and middle-aged, with higher levels of education, living in big cities, and who have a more liberal worldview are more open to euthanasia. Assisted suicide is not considered to be an acceptable practice, with only 18.6% of respondents agreeing with it. However, 40.1% think that physician assisted suicide should be legalised. 51.6% would support the dying person's autonomous decisions regarding end-of-life procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found low levels of acceptance of withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging treatment, euthanasia, assisted suicide and physician assisted suicide in Croatia. In addition, it found evidence that age, level of education, political orientation, and place of residence have an impact on people's views on euthanasia. There is a need for further research into attitudes on different end-of-life practices in Croatia.

[Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in acute oncology situations: History and regulatory aspects in France]

The management of oncology patients, especially hospitalized patients, can lead to almost daily discussions regarding therapeutic limitations. Here, we review the history and propose a summary of the texts framing the notion of "withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment" in oncology practice in France. This decision is regulated by the Claeys-Léonetti Law of February 2, 2016 recommending a collegial discussion and its documentation in the medical record. The decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments is the subject of discussion between the patient, his physicians and his family and may take place at any time during his management. The work of intensive-care physicians provides many useful recommendations for acute oncology situations, however articles specific for oncology practice are scarce; this is a topic that oncologists must take up.

Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in intensive care units in Lebanon: a cross-sectional survey of intensivists and interviews of professional societies, legal and religious leaders

Background

Little is known about the attitudes and practices of intensivists working in Lebanon regarding withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments (LSTs). The objectives of the study were to assess the points of view and practices of intensivists in Lebanon along with the opinions of medical, legal and religious leaders regarding withholding withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in Lebanese intensive care units (ICU).

Methods

A web-based survey was conducted among intensivists working in Lebanese adult ICUs. Interviews were also done with Lebanese medical, legal and religious leaders.

Results

Of the 229 survey recipients, 83 intensivists completed it, i.e. a response rate of (36.3%). Most respondents were between 30 and 49 years old (72%), Catholic Christians (60%), anesthesiologists (63%), working in Beirut (47%). Ninety-two percent of them were familiar with the withholding and withdrawal concepts and 80% applied them. Poor prognosis of the acute and chronic disease and futile therapy were the main reasons to consider withholding and withdrawal of treatments. Ninety-five percent of intensivists agreed with the “Principle of Double Effect” (i.e. adding analgesia and or sedation to patients after the withholding/withdrawal decisions in order to prevent their suffering and allow their comfort, even though it might hasten the dying process). The main withheld therapies were vasopressors, respiratory assistance and CPR. Most of the respondents reported the decision was often to always multidisciplinary (92%), involving the family (68%), and the patient (65%), or his advance directives (77%) or his surrogate (81%) and the nurses (78%). The interviewees agreed there was a law governing withholding and withdrawal decisions/practices in Lebanon. Christians and Muslim Sunni leaders declared accepting those practices (withholding or withdrawing LSTs from patients when appropriate).

Conclusion

Withholding and withdrawal of LSTs in the ICU are known concepts among intensivists working in Lebanon and are being practiced. Our results could be used to inform and optimize therapeutic limitation in ICUs in the country.

Willingness and beliefs associated with reporting travel history to high-risk coronavirus disease 2019 epidemic regions among the Chinese public: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) that first occurred in Wuhan, China, is currently spreading throughout China. The majority of infected patients either traveled to Wuhan or came into contact with an infected person from Wuhan. Investigating members of the public with a travel history to Wuhan became the primary focus of the Chinese government's epidemic prevention and control measures, but several instances of withheld histories were uncovered as localized clusters of infections broke out. This study investigated the public's willingness and beliefs associated with reporting travel history to high-risk epidemic regions, to provide effective suggestions and measures for encouraging travel reporting.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted online between February 12 and 19, 2020. Descriptive analysis, chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test were used to identify socio-demographic factors and beliefs associated with reporting, as well as their impact on the willingness to report on travel history to high-risk epidemic regions.

RESULTS

Of the 1344 respondents, 91 (6.77%) expressed an inclination to deliberately withhold travel history. Those who understood the benefits of reporting and the legal consequences for deliberately withholding information, showed greater willingness to report their history (P < 0.05); conversely, those who believed reporting would stigmatize them and feared being quarantined after reporting showed less willingness to report (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

As any incident of withheld history can have unpredictable outcomes, the proportion of people who deliberately withhold information deserves attention. Appropriate public risk communication and public advocacy strategies should be implemented to strengthen the understanding that reporting on travel history facilitates infection screening and prompt treatment, and to decrease the fear of potentially becoming quarantined after reporting. Additionally, social support and policies should be established, and measures should be taken to alleviate stigmatization and discrimination against potential patients and reporters of travel history. Reinforcing the legal accountability of withholding travel history and strengthening systematic community monitoring are the measures that China is currently taking to encourage reporting on travel history to high-risk epidemic regions. These non-pharmaceutical interventions are relevant for countries that are currently facing the spread of the epidemic and those at risk of its potential spread.

Initiating end-of-life decisions with parents of infants receiving neonatal intensive care

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether parent-initiated or doctor-initiated decisions about limiting life-sustaining treatment (LST) in neonatal care has consequences for how possible courses of action are presented.

METHOD

Formal conversations (n = 27) between doctors and parents of critically ill babies from two level 3 neonatal intensive care units were audio or video recorded. Sequences of talk where decisions about limiting LST were presented were analysed using Conversation Analysis and coded using a Conversation Analytic informed coding framework. Relationships between codes were analysed using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

When parents initiated the decision point, doctors subsequently tended to refer to or list available options. When doctors initiated, they tended to use 'recommendations' or 'single-option' choice (conditional) formats (p=0.017) that did not include multiple treatment options. Parent initiations overwhelmingly concerned withdrawal, as opposed to withholding of LST (p=0.030).

CONCLUSION

Aligning parents to the trajectory of the news about their baby's poor condition may influence how the doctor subsequently presents the decision to limit LST, and thereby the extent to which parents are invited to participate in shared decision-making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Explicitly proposing treatment options may provide parents with opportunities to be involved in decisions for their critically ill babies, thereby fostering shared decision-making.

When can Muslims withdraw or withhold life support? A narrative review of Islamic juridical rulings

When it is ethically justifiable to stop medical treatment? For many Muslim patients, families, and clinicians this ethical question remains a challenging one as Islamic ethico-legal guidance on such matters remains scattered and difficult to interpret. In light of this gap, we conducted a systematic literature review to aggregate rulings from Islamic jurists and juridical councils on whether, and when, it is permitted to withdraw and/or withhold life-sustaining care. A total of 16 fatwās were found, 8 of which were single-author rulings, and 8 represented the collective view of a juridical council. The fatwās are similar in that nearly all judge that Islamic law, provided certain conditions are met, permits abstaining from life-sustaining treatment. Notably, the justifying conditions appear to rely on physician assessment of the clinical prognosis. The fatwās differ when it comes to what conditions justify withdrawing or withholding life- sustaining care. Our analyses suggest that while notions of futility greatly impact the bioethical discourse regarding with holding and/or withdrawal of treatment, the conceptualization of futility lacks nuance. Therefore, clinicians, Islamic jurists, and bioethicists need to come together in order to unify a conception of medical futility and relate it to the ethics of withholding and/or withdrawal of treatment.

Beyond the Equivalence Thesis: how to think about the ethics of withdrawing and withholding life-saving medical treatment

With few exceptions, the literature on withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment considers the bare fact of withdrawing or withholding to lack any ethical significance. If anything, the professional guidelines on this matter are even more uniform. However, while no small degree of progress has been made toward persuading healthcare professionals to withhold treatments that are unlikely to provide significant benefit, it is clear that a certain level of ambivalence remains with regard to withdrawing treatment. Given that the absence of clinical benefit means treating patients is not only ethically questionable but also taxing on resources that could meet the needs of others, this ambivalence is troubling. Equally, the enduring ambivalence of professionals might be taken to indicate that the issue warrants further attention. In this paper, we review the academic literature on the ethical equivalence of withdrawing and withholding medical treatment. While we are not in outright disagreement with the arguments presented, we suggest that asserting theoretical and decontextualized claims about the ethical equivalence of withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment does not fully illuminate the moral questions associated with the relevant clinical realities. We argue that what is required is a broader perspective, one rooted in an understanding that withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment are different practices, the meanings of which are fully comprehensible only through an appreciation of their place within the practice of healthcare more generally. Such an account suggests that if one is to engage with the inappropriate protraction of life-saving treatment resulting from healthcare professionals' disinclination to withdraw it, then the differences between these practices should be taken seriously.

[Amendment to the documentation of decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapies in consideration of wish to donate organs : Recommendation of the Ethics Section and the Organ Donation and Transplantation Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) in collaboration with the Ethics Section of the German Society of Medical Intensive Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine (DGIIN)]

The Ethics Section of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) recently published a documentation for decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining therapies. The wish to donate organs was not considered explicitly. Therefore the Ethics Section and the Organ Donation and Transplantation Section of the DIVI together with the Ethics Section of the German Society of Medical Intensive Care Medicine and Emergency Medicine worked out a supplementary footnote for the documentation form to address the individual case of a patient's wish to donate organs.

A Morally Permissible Moral Mistake? Reinterpreting a Thought Experiment as Proof of Concept

This paper takes the philosophical notion of suberogatory acts or morally permissible moral mistakes and, via a reinterpretation of a thought experiment from the medical ethics literature, offers an initial demonstration of their relevance to the field of medical ethics. That is, at least in regards to this case, we demonstrate that the concept of morally permissible moral mistakes has a bearing on medical decision-making. We therefore suggest that these concepts may have broader importance for the discourse on medical ethics and should receive fuller consideration by those working the field. The focus of the discussion we present is on a particular thought experiment originally presented by Sulmasy and Sugarman. Their case formed the basis of an exchange about the moral equivalence of withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment. The analysis Sulmasy and Sugarman set out is significant because, contrary to common bioethical opinion, it implies that the difference between withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment holds, rather than lacks, moral significance. Following a brief discussion of rejoinders to Sulmasy and Sugarman's article, we present a constructive reinterpretation of the thought experiment, one that draws on the idea of suberogatory acts or "morally permissible moral mistakes." Our analysis, or so we suggest, accounts for the differing moral intuitions that the case prompts. However, it also calls into question the degree to which this thought experiment can be thought of as illustrating the moral (non)equivalence of withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment. Rather, we conclude that it primarily illuminates something about the ethical parameters of healthcare when family members, particularly parents, are involved in decision-making.

Factors related to limitation of life support within 48h of intensive care unit admission: A multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

To determine factors related to limitations on life support within 48h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective multicenter study.

SETTING

Eleven ICUs.

PATIENTS

All patients who died and/or had limitations on life support after ICU admission during a four-month period.

VARIABLES

Patient characteristics, hospital characteristics, characteristics of limitations on life support. Time-to-first-limitation was classified as early (<48h of admission) or late (≥48h). We performed univariate, multivariate analyses and CHAID (chi-square automatic interaction detection) analysis of variables associated with limitation of life support within 48h of ICU admission.

RESULTS

3335 patients were admitted; 326 (9.8%) had limitations on life support. A total of 344 patients died; 247 (71.8%) had limitations on life support (range among centers, 58.6%-84.2%). The median (p25-p75) time from admission to initial limitation was 2 (0-7) days. CHAID analysis found that the modified Rankin score was the variable most closely related with early limitations. Among patients with Rankin >2, early limitations were implemented in 71.7% (OR=2.5; 95% CI: 1.5-4.4) and lung disease was the variable most strongly associated with early limitations (OR=12.29; 95% CI: 1.63-255.91). Among patients with Rankin ≤2, 48.8% had early limitations; patients admitted after emergency surgery had the highest rate of early limitations (66.7%; OR=2.4; 95% CI: 1.1-5.5).

CONCLUSION

Limitations on life support are common, but the practice varies. Quality of life has the greatest impact on decisions to limit life support within 48h of admission.

[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.

Practices of end-of-life decisions in 66 southern French ICUs 4 years after an official legal framework: A 1-day audit

OBJECTIVE

Since the implementation of two French laws in 2002 and 2005 and the implementation of guidelines about End-of-Life (EoL) decisions, few studies concerning EoL practices in French intensive care units (ICUs) have been reported. This study was aimed at assessing compliance with recommendations and current legislation concerning EoL decisions.

METHOD

Prospective observational study based on 1-day audit conducted from January to May 2009 in 66 southern French ICUs.

RESULTS

Six hundred and twenty-five patients were included (median age: 63 [52-76] years, median SAPS II: 46 [34-58]). The written designation of a surrogate decision-maker was reported for 87 (15%) patients. Advance directives were completed for only 4% of patients. The EoL decision-making process consisted in a multidisciplinary approach for 99 (47%) patients and was recorded in the medical chart for 63 (64%) cases. Families were informed about medical decisions in 58% of cases. This proportion was higher (87%) if a decision to forego life-sustaining therapy was made. EoL decisions consisted of withholding treatments for 72 (94%) patients and withdrawal of treatments for 5 (6%) patients. In the multivariate stepwise logistic regression, four variables were independently associated with a decision to forego life support: preexisting dependence on others (P<0.0001), advance directives (P=0.01), age (P=0.008) and the SAPS 2 score (P=0.009).

CONCLUSION

The major finding of the present study is the existence of a gap between the widely approved EoL recommendations made by scientific societies and the daily practice of southern French ICUs. Even if EoL decisions are mostly shared with relatives, their written documentation in medical charts remains insufficient. Concerning EoL practices, the withdrawal of treatment remains an uncommon decision.

Rethinking the withholding/withdrawing distinction: the cultural construction of "life-support" and the framing of end-of-life decisions

This paper is a theoretical and empirically informed examination of the naturalist distinction between withholding and withdrawing life-support.

Drawing on the history of mechanical ventilation and on a recent Israeli law containing a novel approach to disconnecting life-support at the end of life, it is argued that the design of machines predicates the division line between “active” and “passive” interventions, and that the distinction itself might be morally self-defeating.

Informed by insights from moral psychology, behavioral economics and philosophies of technology, the paper warns against the placement of this old distinction at the heart of the moral and legal regulation of life-support at the end of life.

On the ethics of withholding and withdrawing medical treatment

A general rationale is presented for withholding and withdrawing medical treatment in end-of-life situations, and an argument is offered for the moral irrelevance of the distinction, both in the context of pharmaceutical treatments, such as chemotherapy in cancer, and in the context of life-sustaining treatments, such as the artificial ventilator in lateral amyotrophic sclerosis. It is argued that this practice is not equivalent to sanctioning voluntary active euthanasia and that it is not likely to favour it.

Differences between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments

INTRODUCTION

Withholding life-sustaining treatments (WHLST) and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments (WDLST) occur in most intensive care units (ICUs) around the world to varying degrees.

METHODS

Speakers from invited faculty of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine Congress in 2013 with an interest in ethics were approached to participate in an ethics round table. Participants were asked if they agreed with the statement "There is no moral difference between withholding and withdrawing a mechanical ventilator." Differences between WHLST and WDLST were discussed. Official statements relating to WHLST and WDLST from intensive care societies, professional bodies, and government statements were sourced, documented, and compared.

RESULTS

Sixteen respondents stated that there was no moral difference between withholding or withdrawing a mechanical ventilator, 2 were neutral, and 4 stated that there was a difference. Most ethicists and medical organizations state that there is no moral difference between WHLST and WDLST. A review of guidelines noted that all but 1 of 29 considered WHLST and WDLST as ethically or legally equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents, practicing intensivists, stated that there is no difference between WHLST and WDLST, supporting most ethicists and professional organizations. A minority of physicians still do not accept their equivalency.

The Durban World Congress Ethics Round Table Conference Report: III. Withdrawing Mechanical ventilation--the approach should be individualized

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to determine the approaches used in withdrawing mechanical ventilator support.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Speakers from the invited faculty of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine Congress in 2013 with an interest in ethics were asked to provide a detailed description of individual approaches to the process of withdrawal of mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

Twenty-one participants originating from 13 countries, responded to the questionnaire. Four respondents indicated that they do not practice withdrawal of mechanical ventilation, and another 4 indicated that their approach is highly variable depending on the clinical scenario. Immediate withdrawal of ventilation was practiced by a large number of the respondents (7/16; 44%). A terminal wean was practiced by just more than a third of the respondents (6/16; 38%). Extubation was practiced in more than 70% of instances among most of the respondents (9/17; 53%). Two of the respondents (2/17; 12%) indicated that they would extubate all patients, whereas 14 respondents indicated that they would not extubate all their patients. The emphasis was on tailoring the approach used to suit individual case scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Withdrawing of ventilator support is not universal. However, even when withdrawing mechanical ventilation is acceptable, the approach to achieve this end point is highly variable and individualized.

[Medical decision in a very elderly patient: a case report of application of the Leonetti law in emergency medicine]

Advanced care decision in emergency medicine is difficult for the elderly. How to be fair, avoiding an unreasonable obstinacy? Based on the case of very old person, we show how an optimal management can be decided in accordance with the spirit of the law.

Neonatal hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy: most deaths followed end-of-life decisions within three days of birth

AIM

To investigate the circumstances surrounding end-of life decisions (EoL) of infants with hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) and examine changes over a 10-year period.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of all infants with HIE who died during 2000-2004 and 2005-2009 in a Level III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in Madrid, Spain.

RESULTS

Of 70 infants with HIE, 18 died during the neonatal period. The mean age of death was 64.4 ± 51 h. In 17 of the 18 infants (94%), death was preceded by an EoL decision, four after withholding therapy (WH) and 13 after withdrawal therapy (WDT). All infants with WH were previously stable and without respiratory support, while all 13 infants in the WDT group had respiratory support and three were unstable. The age of death was greater in the WH group than the WDT group (122 ± 63 h vs 50 ± 34; p < 0.001). After the EoL decision, 11 (65%) infants received sedatives. There were no differences between the time periods.

CONCLUSION

In our cohort, most deaths in newborns with HIE were preceded by EoL decisions mainly within the first 3 days after birth. We did not find changes over the first decade of the 21st century, and death was mainly determined by WDT.