Tensions between end-of-life care and organ donation in controlled donation after circulatory death: ICU healthcare professionals experiences.

BACKGROUND: The development of controlled donation after circulatory death (cDCD) is both important and challenging. The tension between end-of-life care and organ donation raises significant ethical issues for healthcare professionals in the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this prospective, multicenter, observational study is to better understand ICU physicians' and nurses' experiences with cDCD. METHODS: In 32 ICUs in France, ICU physicians and nurses were invited to complete a questionnaire after the death of end-of-life ICU patients identified as potential cDCD donors who had either experienced the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies alone or with planned organ donation (OD(-) and OD( +) groups). The primary objective was to assess their anxiety (State Anxiety Inventory STAI Y-A) following the death of a potential cDCD donor. Secondary objectives were to explore potential tensions experienced between end-of-life care and organ donation. RESULTS: Two hundred six ICU healthcare professionals (79 physicians and 127 nurses) were included in the course of 79 potential cDCD donor situations. STAI Y-A did not differ between the OD(-) and OD( +) groups for either physicians or nurses (STAI Y-A were 34 (27-38) in OD(-) vs. 32 (27-40) in OD( +), p = 0.911, for physicians and 32 (25-37) in OD(-) vs. 39 (26-37) in OD( +), p = 0.875, for nurses). The possibility of organ donation was a factor influencing the WLST decision for nurses only, and a factor influencing the WLST implementation for both nurses and physicians. cDCD experience is perceived positively by ICU healthcare professionals overall. CONCLUSIONS: cDCD does not increase anxiety in ICU healthcare professionals compared to other situations of WLST. WLST and cDCD procedures could further be improved by supporting professionals in making their intentions clear between end-of-life support and the success of organ donation, and when needed, by enhancing communication between ICU physician and nurses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This research was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT05041023, September 10, 2021).

[Priority setting in intensive care from an ethical perspective]. / Prioriteringar i intensivvården ur ett etiskt perspektiv.

Priority setting at intensive care units is legally regulated in accordance with the so-called ethical platform, which states that all priorities must be based on three lexically ranked principles: the principle of human dignity (a ban on discrimination, e.g. based on social standing), the principle of needs and solidarity, and the principle of cost-effectiveness. Prioritization for intensive care is particularly difficult as it requires comparisons between widely different patient categories, occurs in acute situations and is fraught with great uncertainty about the prognosis. Sometimes the degree of severity is maximal for several patients: without treatment, they die. Then treatment effect and cost-effectiveness become more decisive for prioritization decisions. Moreover, withholding and withdrawing intensive care are increasingly considered as morally equivalent. Difficult priority decisions risk moral stress among the intensive care staff.

Position statement of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions in the context of palliative care.

The issue of withrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions is an important source of controversy among healthcare professionals caring for patients with serious illnesses. Misguided decisions, both in terms of the introduction/maintenance and the withdrawal/withholding of these measures, represent a source of avoidable suffering for patients, their loved ones, and healthcare professionals. This document represents the position statement of the Bioethics Committee of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on this issue and establishes seven principles to guide, from a bioethical perspective, the approach to situations related to this topic in the context of palliative care in Brazil. The position statement establishes the equivalence between the withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining interventions and the inadequacy related to initiating or maintaining such measures in contexts where they are in disagreement with the values and care goals defined together with patients and their families. Additionally, the position statement distinguishes strictly futile treatments from potentially inappropriate treatments and elucidates their critical implications for the appropriateness of the medical decision-making process in this context. Finally, we address the issue of conscientious objection and its limits, determine that the ethical commitment to the relief of suffering should not be influenced by the decision to employ or not employ life-sustaining interventions and warn against the use of language that causes patients/families to believe that only one of the available options related to the use or nonuse of these interventions will enable the relief of suffering.

Evaluating the impact of a standardised intervention for announcing decisions of withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments on the stress of relatives in emergency departments (DISCUSS): protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The decisions of withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments are difficult to make in the context of emergency departments (EDs) because most patients are unable to communicate. Relatives are thus asked to participate in the decision-making process, although they are unprepared to face such situations. We therefore aimed to develop a standardised intervention for announcing decisions of withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in EDs and assess the efficacy of the intervention on the stress of relatives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The DISCUSS trial is a multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomised study and will be conducted at nine EDs in France. A standardised intervention based on human simulation will be codesigned with partner families and implemented at three levels: the relatives, the healthcare professionals (HCP) and the EDs. The intervention will be compared with a control based on treatment as usual. A total of 538 families are planned to be included: 269 in the intervention group and 269 in the control group. The primary endpoint will be the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at 90 days. The secondary endpoints will be symptoms of PTSD at 7 and 30 days, diagnosis of PTSD at 90 days and anxiety and depression scores at 7, 30 and 90 days. Satisfaction regarding the training, the assertiveness in communication and real-life stress of HCPs will be measured at 90 days. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the ethics committee Est III from Nancy and the French national data protection authority. All relatives and HCPs will be informed regarding the study objectives and data confidentiality. Written informed consent will be obtained from participants, as required by French law for this study type. The results from this study will be disseminated at conferences and in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06071078.

[Ethical considerations in the management of premature newborns with severe intraventricular hemorrhage]. / Consideraciones éticas en el manejo del recién nacido prematuro con hemorragia intraventricular grave.

Intracranial hemorrhage continues to be a prevalent pathology in preterm newborns, especially in those with lower gestational age and birth weight. It occurs more frequently in the first days of life, and the severity of bleeding is directly related to the degree of immaturity and other conditions of the patient. Intracranial hemorrhage is associated with a significant increased risk of mortality and, in those who survive, it is associated with an increased risk of neurodevelopmental disorders and long-term disability. Establishing an accurate prognosis is essential but frequently it is difficult to assay, dealing with uncertainty that healthcare team and the family must consider when they have to decide about the goals of care to provide to the newborn, including withholding or withdrawing life support treatments. Reflections regarding the best interest of the newborn, the complexity of quality-of-life, end-of-life shared decision-making process, uncovered biases, parental values, emotions, preferences and hopes, should be included in these challenging bioethical considerations and communications with the family.

La hemorragia intracraneana sigue siendo una enfermedad prevalente en los recién nacidos prematuros, especialmente en aquellos con menor edad gestacional y peso al nacer. Ocurre más frecuentemente en los primeros días de vida y la gravedad del sangrado se relaciona directamente con el grado de inmadurez y otras condiciones que afectan al paciente. La hemorragia intracraneana se asocia a un riesgo significativamente mayor de mortalidad y, en los que sobreviven, con un mayor riesgo de trastornos del neurodesarrollo y discapacidad a largo plazo. Establecer un pronóstico certero es esencial, pero frecuentemente es difícil de determinar, y el equipo de salud y la familia deben enfrentarse con la incertidumbre al momento de decidir acerca de los objetivos de los cuidados para el recién nacido, incluyendo la posible abstención o suspensión de tratamientos de soporte vital. Reflexiones relacionadas con el mejor interés del recién nacido, la complejidad de pronosticar su calidad de vida, el proceso de toma de decisiones sobre el final de la vida, los sesgos subyacentes, los valores, emociones, preferencias y expectativas de los padres, deben ser incluidos en este escenario difícil desde el punto de vista bioético y en las comunicaciones con la familia.

Physicians' experiences and perceptions about withholding and withdrawal life-sustaining treatment in Chiang Mai University Hospital: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in end-of-life patients is a challenging ethical issue faced by physicians. Understanding physicians' experiences and factors influencing their decisions can lead to improvement in end-of-life care. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the experiences of Thai physicians when making decisions regarding the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in end-of-life situations. Additionally, the study aims to assess the consensus among physicians regarding the factors that influence these decisions and to explore the influence of families or surrogates on the decision-making process of physicians, utilizing case-based surveys. METHODS: A web-based survey was conducted among physicians practicing in Chiang Mai University Hospital (June - October 2022). RESULTS: Among 251 physicians (response rate 38.3%), most of the respondents (60.6%) reported that they experienced withholding or withdrawal treatment in end-of-life patients. Factors that influence their decision-making include patient's preferences (100%), prognosis (93.4%), patients' quality of life (92.8%), treatment burden (89.5%), and families' request (87.5%). For a chronic disease with comatose condition, the majority of the physicians (47%) chose to continue treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In contrast, only 2 physicians (0.8%) would do everything, in cases when families or surrogates insisted on stopping the treatment. This increased to 78.1% if the families insisted on continuing treatment. CONCLUSION: Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments are common in Thailand. The key factors influencing their decision-making process included patient's preferences and medical conditions and families' requests. Effective communication and early engagement in advanced care planning between physicians, patients, and families empower them to align treatment choices with personal values.

Ethical and Legal Perspectives on the Treatment of Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy in the Newborn.

Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) in neonates can cause severe, life-long functional impairments or death. Treatment of these neonates can involve ethically challenging questions about if, when, and how it may be appropriate to limit life-sustaining medical therapy. Further, parents whose infants suffer severe neurologic damage may seek recourse in the form of a medical malpractice lawsuit. This study uses several hypothetical cases to highlight important ethical and legal considerations in the care of infants with HIE.

Withdrawing Life Support After Attempted Suicide: A Case Study and Review of Ethical Considerations.

Ethical questions surrounding withdrawal of life support can be complex. When life support therapies are the result of a suicide attempt, the potential ethical issues take on another dimension. Duties and principles that normally guide clinicians' actions as caregivers may not apply as easily. We present a case of attempted suicide in which decisions surrounding withdrawal of life support provoked conflict between a patient's family and the medical team caring for him. We highlight the major unresolved philosophical questions and contradictory normative values about suicide that underlie this conflict. Finally, we show how these considerations were practically applied to this particular case.

End-of-life Care in the Intensive Care Unit and Ethics of Withholding/Withdrawal of Life-sustaining Treatments.

The medical progress has produced improvements in critically ill patients' survival to early phases of life-threatening diseases, thus producing long intensive care stays and persisting disability, with uncertain long-term survival rates and quality of life. Thus, compassionate end-of-life care and the provision of palliative care, even overlapping with the most aggressive of curative intensive care unit (ICU) care has become crucial. Moreover, withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment may be adopted, allowing unavoidable deaths to occur, without prolonging agony or ICU stay. Our aim was to summarize the key element of end-of-life care in the ICU and the ethics of withholding/withdrawal life-sustaining treatments.

Withdrawing versus Withholding Treatments in Medical Reimbursement Decisions: A Study on Public Attitudes.

BACKGROUND: The use of policies in medical treatment reimbursement decisions, in which only future patients are affected, prompts a moral dilemma: is there an ethical difference between withdrawing and withholding treatment? DESIGN: Through a preregistered behavioral experiment involving 1,067 participants, we tested variations in public attitudes concerning withdrawing and withholding treatments at both the bedside and policy levels. RESULTS: In line with our first hypothesis, participants were more supportive of rationing decisions presented as withholding treatments compared with withdrawing treatments. Contrary to our second prestated hypothesis, participants were more supportive of decisions to withdraw treatment made at the bedside level compared with similar decisions made at the policy level. IMPLICATIONS: Our findings provide behavioral insights that help explain the common use of policies affecting only future patients in medical reimbursement decisions, despite normative concerns of such policies. In addition, our results may have implications for communication strategies when making decisions regarding treatment reimbursement. HIGHLIGHTS: We explore public' attitudes toward withdrawing and withholding treatments and how the decision level (bedside or policy level) matters.People were more supportive of withholding medical treatment than of withdrawing equivalent treatment.People were more supportive of treatment withdrawal made at the bedside than at the policy level.Our findings help clarify why common-use policies, which impact only future patients in medical reimbursement decision, are implemented despite the normative concerns associted with thesepolicies.

When Life-Supporting Interventions Lead to Moral Distress.

Moral distress can impact nurses and the care team significantly. A profession dedicated to the principles of caring and compassion is often subjected to patients receiving futile treatment. With the proliferation of extreme life-prolonging measures come the difficulties in the withdrawal of those medical modalities. If a prognosis is poor and care is perceived as curative rather than palliative, providers may often feel conflicted and distressed by their interventions. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing has expressed growing concern about an increase in the use of inappropriate life-support treatments related to futile care. The compelling case of a severely beaten 69-year-old homeless man who had cardiac-arrested and was resuscitated after an unknown amount of down-time, provides the contextual framework for this report. Ethical conflicts can become very challenging, which inevitably increases the suffering of the patient and their caregivers. Research findings suggest that health care organizations can benefit from enacting processes that make ethical considerations an early and routine part of everyday clinical practice. A proactive approach to ethical conflicts may improve patient care outcomes and decrease moral distress.

Urban people's preferences for life-sustaining treatment or artificial nutrition and hydration in advance decisions.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Right to Autonomy Act (PRAA), implemented in Taiwan in 2019, enables the creation of advance decisions (AD) through advance care planning (ACP). This legal framework allows for the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (LST) or artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) in situations like irreversible coma, vegetative state, severe dementia, or unbearable pain. This study aims to investigate preferences for LST or ANH across various clinical conditions, variations in participant preferences, and factors influencing these preferences among urban residents. METHODS: Employing a survey of legally structured AD documents and convenience sampling for data collection, individuals were enlisted from Taipei City Hospital, serving as the primary trial and demonstration facility for ACP in Taiwan since the commencement of the PRAA in its inaugural year. The study examined ADs and ACP consultation records, documenting gender, age, welfare entitlement, disease conditions, family caregiving experience, location of ACP consultation, participation of second-degree relatives, and the intention to participate in ACP. RESULTS: Data from 2337 participants were extracted from electronic records. There was high consistency in the willingness to refuse LST and ANH, with significant differences noted between terminal diseases and extremely severe dementia. Additionally, ANH was widely accepted as a time-limited treatment, and there was a prevalent trend of authorizing a health care agent (HCA) to make decisions on behalf of participants. Gender differences were observed, with females more inclined to decline LST and ANH, while males tended towards accepting full or time-limited treatment. Age also played a role, with younger participants more open to treatment and authorizing HCA, and older participants more prone to refusal. CONCLUSION: Diverse preferences in LST and ANH were shaped by the public's current understanding of different clinical states, gender, age, and cultural factors. Our study reveals nuanced end-of-life preferences, evolving ADs, and socio-demographic influences. Further research could explore evolving preferences over time and healthcare professionals' perspectives on LST and ANH decisions for neurological patients..

The Gap in Attitudes Toward Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment Between Japanese Physicians and Citizens.

BACKGROUND: According to some medical ethicists and professional guidelines, there is no ethical difference between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. However, medical professionals do not always agree with this notion. Patients and their families may also not regard these decisions as equivalent. Perspectives on life-sustaining treatment potentially differ between cultures and countries. This study compares Japanese physicians' and citizens' attitudes toward hypothetical cases of withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. METHODS: Ten vignette cases were developed. A web-based questionnaire was administered to 457 citizens and 284 physicians to determine whether they supported withholding or withdrawing treatment. RESULTS: In a case where a patient had an advance directive refusing ventilation, 77% of the physicians and 68% of the citizens chose to withhold treatment. In a case where there was an advance directive but the patient's family requested treatment, 55% of the physicians and 45% of the citizens chose to withhold the ventilator. When a family requested withdrawal of the ventilator but patient wishes were unknown, 19% of the physicians and 48% of the citizens chose to withdraw the ventilator. However, when the patient had also indicated their wishes in writing, 49% of the physicians and 66% of the citizens chose to withdraw treatment. More physicians were prepared to withdraw dialysis (84%) and artificial nutrition (81%) at a patient's request than mechanical ventilation (49%). CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of Japanese physicians and citizens were reluctant to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, even in cases where the patient had indicated their wishes in writing. They were more likely to withhold than withdraw treatment, and more likely to withdraw artificial nutrition than mechanical ventilation. Japanese physicians gave significant weight to family views about treatment but were less likely to agree to withdraw treatment than citizens, indicating a potential source of conflict in clinical settings.

Euthanasia and End-of-Life Decisions: From the Empirical Turn to Moral Intuitionism.

Most medical learned societies have endorsed both "equivalence" between all forms of withholding or withdrawing treatment and the "discontinuity" between euthanasia and practices to withhold or withdraw treatment. While the latter are morally acceptable insofar as they consist in letting the patient die, the former constitutes an illegitimate act of actively interfering with a patient's life. The moral distinction between killing and letting die has been hotly debated both conceptually and empirically, most notably by experimental philosophers, with inconclusive results. This article employs a "revisionary" intuititionist perspective to discuss the results of a clinical ethics study about intensivists' perceptions of withhold or withdraw decisions. The results show that practitioners' moral experience is at odds with both the discontinuity and equivalence theses. This outcome allows us to revisit certain concepts, such as intention and causal relationship, that are prominent in the conceptual debate. Intensivists also regard end-of-life decisions as being on a scale from least to most active, and whether they regard active forms of end-of-life decisions as ethically acceptable depends on the overarching professional values they endorse: the patient's best chances of survival, or the patient's quality of life.

Ethical issues surrounding appropriate care for older persons in the Intensive Care Unit.

Increasing numbers of older patients are being admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) as the world's population ages. The biological process of ageing, senescence, results in altered ability to maintain normal homeostasis and organ function, including of the cardiovascular, immune, and neuromuscular systems. This contributes towards increased frailty in older patients, associated with functional limitations and increased vulnerability. Although widely defined using chronological age, the concept of "old age" is thus multifactorial, including biological, but also psychological and sociocultural aspects, which should all be taken into account when considering what is appropriate in terms of ICU admission and management. As for all patients, but perhaps particularly in this subgroup, decisions regarding ICU admission and treatment and the withdrawing and withholding of life support must be individualized.

Limitation of life sustaining therapy in disorders of consciousness: ethics and practice.

Clinical conversations surrounding the continuation or limitation of life-sustaining therapies (LLST) are both challenging and tragically necessary for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) following severe brain injury. Divergent cultural, philosophical and religious perspectives contribute to vast heterogeneity in clinical approaches to LLST-as reflected in regional differences and inter-clinician variability. Here we provide an ethical analysis of factors that inform LLST decisions among patients with DoC. We begin by introducing the clinical and ethical challenge and clarifying the distinction between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining therapy. We then describe relevant factors that influence LLST decision-making including diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, perception of pain, defining a 'good' outcome, and the role of clinicians. In concluding sections, we explore global variation in LLST practices as they pertain to patients with DoC and examine the impact of cultural and religious perspectives on approaches to LLST. Understanding and respecting the cultural and religious perspectives of patients and surrogates is essential to protecting patient autonomy and advancing goal-concordant care during critical moments of medical decision-making involving patients with DoC.

Advance directives for oral feeding in dementia: a response to Shelton and Geppert.

In a recent paper in JME, Shelton and Geppert use an approach by Menzel and Chandler-Cramer to sort out ethical dilemmas about the oral feeding of patients in advanced dementia, ultimately arguing that the usefulness of advance directives about such feeding is highly limited. They misunderstand central aspects of Menzel's and Chandler-Cramer's approach, and in making their larger claim that such directives are much less useful than typically presumed, they fail to account for five important elements in writing good directives for dementia and implementing them properly: (1) Directives should be paired with appointment of trusted agents. (2) Appointed agents' authority can be greatly weakened without advance directives to guide them. (3) Directives' implementation does not require clinically precise assessment of dementia's stage. (4) Palliative support is typically required for withholding of oral feeding to be compassionate. (5) The central purpose of stopping feeding is often not the avoidance of suffering but not prolonging unwanted life.