Hospital Policy Variation in Addressing Decisions to Withhold and Withdraw Life-Sustaining Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Sociodemographic disparities in physician decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment exist. Little is known about the content of hospital policies that guide physicians involved in these decisions. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the prevalence of US hospitals with policies that address withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment; how do these policies approach ethically controversial scenarios; and how do these policies address sociodemographic disparities in decisions to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This national cross-sectional survey assessed the content of hospital policies addressing decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. We distributed the survey electronically to American Society for Bioethics and Humanities members between July and August 2023 and descriptively analyzed responses. RESULTS: Among 93 respondents from hospitals or hospital systems representing all 50 US states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC, 92% had policies addressing decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Hospitals varied in their stated guidance, permitting life-sustaining treatment to be withheld or withdrawn in cases of patient or surrogate request (82%), physiologic futility (81%), and potentially inappropriate treatment (64%). Of the 8% of hospitals with policies that addressed patient sociodemographic disparities in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, these policies provided opposing recommendations to either exclude sociodemographic factors in decision-making or actively acknowledge and incorporate these factors in decision-making. Only 3% of hospitals had policies that recommended collecting and maintaining information about patients for whom life-sustaining treatment was withheld or withdrawn that could be used to identify disparities in decision-making. INTERPRETATION: Although most surveyed US hospital policies addressed withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, these policies varied widely in criteria and processes. Surveyed policies also rarely addressed sociodemographic disparities in these decisions.

Trauma of abortion restrictions and forced pregnancy: urgent implications for acute care surgeons.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health decision, acute care surgeons face an increased likelihood of seeing patients with complications from both self-managed abortions and forced pregnancy in underserved areas of reproductive and maternity care throughout the USA. Acute care surgeons have an ethical and legal duty to provide care to these patients, especially in obstetrics and gynecology deserts, which already exist in much of the country and are likely to be exacerbated by legislation banning abortion. Structural inequities lead to an over-representation of poor individuals and people of color among patients seeking abortion care, and it is imperative to make central the fact that people of color who can become pregnant will be disproportionately affected by this legislation in every respect. Acute care surgeons must take action to become aware of and trained to treat both the direct clinical complications and the extragestational consequences of reproductive injustice, while also using their collective voices to reaffirm the right to abortion as essential healthcare in the USA.

Medical Decision Making and the Previvor.

Genetic testing has led to the establishment of the concept of the "previvor": someone who is not yet sick, but who has a genetic predisposition to disease. The previvor experience demonstrates how the practice of medicine and medical decision making is evolving to render current law and policy increasingly inapplicable to modern medical practice. The introduction of previvorship to the medical landscape raises special issues for the physician-patient relationship and the legal doctrine of informed consent. It challenges some of the most basic assumptions underlying the doctrine, is representative of the doctrine's declining utility, and is illustrative of the need to transition to a shared decision-making model. Thus, we should begin to envision a legal doctrine that supports a robust shared decision-making approach to address individual preferences and values, the increasing complexity of risk/benefit assessment, and inherent (and sometimes irreducible) uncertainty. Such an approach should emphasize a new, more expansive, and inclusive model of illness.

Reciprocity and Liability Protections during the Covid-19 Pandemic.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, as resources dwindled, clinicians, health care institutions, and policymakers have expressed concern about potential legal liability for following crisis standards of care (CSC) plans. Although there is no robust empirical research to demonstrate that liability protections actually influence physician behavior, we argue that limited liability protections for health care professionals who follow established CSC plans may instead be justified by reliance on the principle of reciprocity. Expecting physicians to do something they know will harm their patients causes moral distress and suffering that may leave lasting scars. Limited liability shields are both appropriate and proportionate to the risk physicians are being asked to take in such circumstances. Under certain narrow circumstances, it remains unclear that the standard of care is sufficiently flexible to protect physicians from liability. Given this uncertainty, the likelihood that physicians would be sued for such an act, and their desire for such immunity, this limited protection is morally legitimate.

Clinical and Ethical Considerations in Allocation of Ventilators in an Influenza Pandemic or Other Public Health Disaster: A Comparison of the 2007 and 2015 New York State Ventilator Allocation Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: During an influenza or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that results in acute respiratory distress, the number of available ventilators will not meet demand. In 2007, the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law and Department of Health released draft Guidelines for ethical allocation of ventilators for adults. In 2015, updated guidelines were released to ensure that: (1) revisions reflect the public's values and (2) the triage protocol is substantiated by evidence-based clinical data. We summarize the development and content of the 2015 Guidelines compared with the 2007 version, emphasizing new/revised aspects of the ethical considerations and clinical protocol. METHODS: We compared the 2007 and 2015 guidelines, with particular emphasis on the ethical issues and clinical protocols. RESULTS: The 2015 Guidelines retained much of the ethical and clinical framework of the 2007 draft. The triage protocol was revised using evidence-based clinical data. Patients with the highest likelihood of short-term survival with ventilator therapy have priority access. Protocol consists of exclusion criteria, the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, and periodic clinical assessments. Guidance is provided on secondary triage criteria. Other forms of medical intervention/palliative care and review of triage decisions are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The 2015 Guidelines reflect advances in medicine and societal values and provide an evidenced-based framework to save the most lives. The framework could be adapted in other emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, that require ventilators.

Delegating Informed Consent.

Ten years ago, Megan Shinal sought the care of neurosurgeon Steven Toms for the surgical treatment of a recurrent nonmalignant tumor in the pituitary region of her brain. In their twenty-minute meeting, Shinal did not make a final decision about which surgical approach she wished to pursue. Subsequently, she spoke with Tom's physician assistant once by phone and once in person, when she signed the consent form, which did not appear to designate which surgical approach she had chosen. During the operation-a total resection-Toms perforated Shinal's carotid artery, resulting in hemorrhage, stroke, brain injury, and partial blindness. The jury found that Toms had fulfilled his informed-consent obligations prior to performing the resection; however, in June 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania overturned the decision, relying on the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act. The court found that the language of the act is unambiguous in its requirement that "a physician's duty to provide information to a patient sufficient to obtain her informed consent is non-delegable." Presumably, this rule of nondelegation applies beyond the surgical theater to other major treatment decisions. And it is unclear whether it applies to other professionals in a subordinate position to the treating physician, such as residents and fellows.

A policy in flux: New York State's evolving approach to human subjects research involving individuals who lack consent capacity.

American history has been rife with human subjects research scandals, particularly those that involve "vulnerable" populations. State and federal laws and regulations often do not provide any special oversight mechanisms or protections to ensure the ethical and safe inclusion of cognitively impaired adults in research. At the New York State level, repeated (and often unsuccessful) efforts have been made to regulate research involving individuals who lack consent capacity. In January 2014, the New York State Task Force on Life and the Law released its Report and Recommendations for Research with Human Subjects Who Lack Consent Capacity, which represents the most recent step in a decades-long process in the state to develop oversight mechanisms that are appropriately sensitive to the fine line between protecting a vulnerable population and impeding the advancement of research. These recommendations may serve as a model for research policy in other states and at the federal level, particularly in light of shifting societal concerns and changing political winds.

PGTandMe: social networking-based genetic testing and the evolving research model.

The opportunity to use extensive genetic data, personal information, and family medical history for research purposes may be naturally appealing to the personal genetic testing (PGT) industry, which is already coupling direct-to-consumer (DTC) products with social networking technologies, as well as to potential industry or institutional partners. This article evaluates the transformation in research that the hybrid of PGT and social networking will bring about, and--highlighting the challenges associated with a new paradigm of "patient-driven" genomic research--focuses on the consequences of shifting the structure, locus, timing, and scope of research through genetic crowd-sourcing. This article also explores potential ethical, legal, and regulatory issues that arise from the hybrid between personal genomic research and online social networking, particularly regarding informed consent, institutional review board (IRB) oversight, and ownership/intellectual property (IP) considerations.