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.

Frequency and Severity of Moral Distress in Nephrology Fellows: A National Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Moral distress is a negative affective response to a situation in which one is compelled to act in a way that conflicts with one's values. Little is known about the workplace scenarios that elicit moral distress in nephrology fellows. METHODS: We sent a moral distress survey to 148 nephrology fellowship directors with a request to forward it to their fellows. Using a 5-point (0-4) scale, fellows rated both the frequency (never to very frequently) and severity (not at all disturbing to very disturbing) of commonly encountered workplace scenarios. Ratings of ≥3 were used to define "frequent" and "moderate-to-severe" moral distress. RESULTS: The survey was forwarded by 64 fellowship directors to 386 fellows, 142 of whom (37%) responded. Their mean age was 33 ± 3.6 years and 43% were female. The scenarios that most commonly elicited moderate to severe moral distress were initiating dialysis in situations that the fellow considered futile (77%), continuing dialysis in a hopelessly ill patient (81%) and carrying a high patient census (75%), and observing other providers giving overly optimistic descriptions of the benefits of dialysis (64%). Approximately 27% had considered quitting fellowship during training, including 9% at the time of survey completion. CONCLUSION: A substantial majority of nephrology trainees experienced moral distress of moderate to severe intensity, mainly related to the futile treatment of hopelessly ill patients. Efforts to reduce moral distress in trainees are required.

Inter-physician variability in strategies linked to treatment limitations after severe traumatic brain injury; proactivity or wait-and-see.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic uncertainty is a challenge for physicians in the neuro intensive care field. Questions about whether continued life-sustaining treatment is in a patient's best interests arise in different phases after a severe traumatic brain injury. In-depth information about how physicians deal with ethical issues in different contexts is lacking. The purpose of this study was to seek insight into clinicians' strategies concerning unresolved prognostic uncertainty and their ethical reasoning on the issue of limitation of life-sustaining treatment in patients with minimal or no signs of neurological improvement after severe traumatic brain injury in the later trauma hospital phase. METHODS: Interviews with 18 physicians working in a neurointensive care unit in a large Norwegian trauma hospital, followed by a qualitative thematic analysis focused on physicians' strategies related to treatment-limiting decision-making. RESULTS: A divide between proactive and wait-and-see strategies emerged. Notwithstanding the hospital's strong team culture, inter-physician variability with regard to ethical reasoning and preferred strategies was exposed. All the physicians emphasized the importance of team-family interactions. Nevertheless, their strategies differed: (1) The proactive physicians were open to consider limitations of life-sustaining treatment when the prognosis was grim. They initiated ethical discussions, took leadership in clarification and deliberation processes regarding goals and options, saw themselves as guides for the families and believed in the necessity to prepare families for both best-case and worst-case scenarios. (2) The "wait-and-see" physicians preferred open-ended treatment (no limitations). Neurologically injured patients need time to uncover their true recovery potential, they argued. They often avoided talking to the family about dying or other worst-case scenarios during this phase. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the individual physician in charge, ethical issues may rest unresolved or not addressed in the later trauma hospital phase. Nevertheless, team collaboration serves to mitigate inter-physician variability. There are problems and pitfalls to be aware of related to both proactive and wait-and-see approaches. The timing of best-interest discussions and treatment-limiting decisions remain challenging after severe traumatic brain injury. Routines for timely and open discussions with families about the range of ethically reasonable options need to be strengthened.

Resuscitating Patient Rights during the Pandemic: COVID-19 and the Risk of Resurgent Paternalism.

The COVID-19 Pandemic a stress test for clinical medicine and medical ethics, with a confluence over questions of the proportionality of resuscitation. Drawing upon his experience as a clinical ethicist during the surge in New York City during the Spring of 2020, the author considers how attitudes regarding resuscitation have evolved since the inception of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders decades ago. Sharing a personal narrative about a DNR quandry he encountered as a medical intern, the author considers the balance of patient rights versus clinical discretion, warning about the risk of resurgent physician paternalism dressed up in the guise of a public health crisis.

Moral Distress in Nephrology: Perceived Barriers to Ethical Clinical Care.

Moral distress occurs when individuals are unable to act in accordance with what they believe to be ethically correct or just. It results from a discrepancy between a clinician's perception of "the right thing to do" and what is actually happening and is perpetuated by perceived constraints that limit the individual from speaking up or enacting change. Moral distress is reported by many clinicians in caring for patients with serious illness, including chronic kidney disease and kidney failure. If left unidentified, unexpressed, or unaddressed, moral distress may cause burnout, exhaustion, detachment, and ineffectiveness. At an extreme, moral distress may lead to a desire to abandon the speciality entirely. This article offers an international perspective on moral distress in nephrology in diverse contexts and health care systems. We examine and discuss the sociocultural factors that contribute to moral distress in nephrology and offer suggestions for interventions from individual provider, facility, and health care systems perspectives to reduce the impact of moral distress on nephrology providers.

Conceptions of dignity in the Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans and Isaiah Haastrup cases.

In 2017 and 2018, the English courts were asked to decide whether continued life-sustaining treatment was in the best interests of three infants: Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans and Isaiah Haastrup. Each infant had sustained catastrophic, irrecoverable brain damage. Dignity played an important role in the best interests assessments reached by the Family division of the High Court in each case. Multiple conceptions of dignity circulate, with potentially conflicting implications for infants such as Charlie, Alfie and Isaiah. The judgements do not explicate the conceptions of dignity upon which they rely. This article reconstructs the conceptions of dignity invoked in these judgements, finding that a broadly Kantian, agential conception dominates, under which human dignity requires the prospect of agency. This conception is situated within the broader body of thought on dignity, and the potentially adverse implications of applying the reconstructed conception in best interests assessments for infants with severely restricted consciousness are discussed.

An alternative approach to developing guidelines for the management of an anticipated extremely preterm infant.

Objectives To identify the probability of survival and severe neurodevelopmental impairment (sNDI) at which perinatal physicians would or would not offer or recommend resuscitation at birth for extremely preterm infants. Methods A Delphi process consisting of five rounds was implemented to seek consensus (>80% agreement) amongst British Columbia perinatal physicians. The first-round consisted of neonatal and maternal-fetal-medicine Focus Groups. Rounds two to five surveyed perinatal physicians, building upon previous rounds. Draft guidelines were developed and agreement sought. Results Based on 401 responses across all rounds, consensus was obtained that resuscitation should not be offered if survival probability <5%, not recommended if survival probability 5 to <10%, resuscitation recommended if survival without sNDI probability >70 to 90% and resuscitation standard care if survival without sNDI >90%. Conclusions This physician consensus-based, objective framework for the management of an anticipated extremely preterm infant is a transparent alternative to existing guidelines, minimizing gestational-ageism and allowing for individualized management utilizing up-to-date data. Further input from other key stakeholders will be required prior to guideline implementation.

Conceptually Redefining Neonatal Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: First defined in 2002 by Catlin and Carter, neonatal palliative care (NPC) is a relatively new model of care in neonatal pediatrics, first appearing in the medical literature in the early 1980s. PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to suggest a conceptual definition of NPC that encompasses all the essential concepts as a way of moving NPC forward by having a consistent approach. METHODS: Following a review of the NPC literature, a thematic analysis as a method for identifying, analyzing, and interpreting patterns of meaning in the definitions ("themes") within the literature was undertaken. FINDINGS: The major themes identified included philosophies of care, support, culture and spirituality, the team, and clinical management. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH: At the heart of NPC is the primacy of maintaining quality of life, while providing ethical and humane care that supports a "good death." The extensive elements presented in this article are considered essential to a comprehensive and conceptual definition of NPC proposed here.

Identification of core ethical topics for interprofessional education in the intensive care unit: a thematic analysis.

Medical educators have not identified effective approaches for interprofessional ethics education of clinicians who work in intensive care units (ICUs), in spite of the fact that ICUs have a high incidence of ethical conflicts. As a first step in designing an interprofessional ethics education initiative tailored to the needs of ICU team members, we interviewed 12 professionals from the medical and surgical ICUs of a tertiary care academic medical center to understand what they know about medical ethics. Respondents were interviewed between November 2016 and February 2017. We used the 'think aloud' approach and realist thematic analysis of the sessions to evaluate the extent and content of interprofessional team members' knowledge of medical ethics. We found wide variation in their knowledge of and facility in applying the principles and concepts of biomedical ethics and ways of resolving ethical conflicts. Ethics education tailored to these areas will help equip critical care professionals with the necessary knowledge and skills to discuss and address ethical conflicts encountered in the ICU. Preventive ethics rounds are one approach for providing real-time, embedded interprofessional ethics education in the clinical setting.

The new futility? The rhetoric and role of "suffering" in pediatric decision-making.

This article argues that while the presence and influence of "futility" as a concept in medical decision-making has declined over the past decade, medicine is seeing the rise of a new concept with similar features: suffering. Like futility, suffering may appear to have a consistent meaning, but in actuality, the concept is colloquially invoked to refer to very different experiences. Like "futility," claims of patient "suffering" have been used (perhaps sometimes consciously, but most often unconsciously) to smuggle value judgments about quality of life into decision-making. And like "futility," it would behoove us to recognize the need for new, clearer terminology. This article will focus specifically on secondhand claims of patient suffering in pediatrics, but the conclusions could be similarly applied to medical decisions for adults being made by surrogate decision-makers. While I will argue that suffering, like futility, is not sufficient wholesale justification for making unilateral treatment decisions, I will also argue that claims of patient suffering cannot be ignored, and that they almost always deserve some kind of response. In the final section, I offer practical suggestions for how to respond to claims of patient suffering.

Getting the Balance Right: Medical Futility, Scientific Advancement, and the Role of Law.

The concept of medical futility as an applied ethical framework has seen a rise and fall in its popularity over the last 30 years. It is a term used in relation to the assessment of a patient's health condition that is deemed untreatable, irreversible, and unresolvable. In four recent cases, Gard, Evans, Haastrup, and Raqeeb, the concept has been brought to the fore once again. These cases highlight a mounting tension between clinicians and families. Parental desires to see their child's treatment continued, while understandable, should not dominate treatment planning. This article analyses judicial interpretation of the factors which determine an assessment of futility and in doing so, argues that the role of medical futility in judicial decisions of this kind is gaining prominence and will continue to do so as scientific advancement blurs the limits of medicine even further.

The Value in Doing Something.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the reasons why attempts at redirection, especially at the end of life, often fail, and patients and families insist on treating the underlying illness. SETTING: Conflicts between patients and caregivers regarding the appropriate course of treatment. MAIN RESULTS: Clinicians typically understand requests for treatment merely as means to obtain effective care. However, patients and families often request treatment as a way to exert their agency, avoid a sense of responsibility for unwanted outcomes, and express compassion. CONCLUSIONS: In response to devastating illness, patients and families are frequently motivated by factors that go beyond obtaining effective care. Awareness of these factors can help clinicians to identify sources of potential conflict and continue to provide compassionate care.

Doctors' perceptions of how resource limitations relate to futility in end-of-life decision making: a qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To increase knowledge of how doctors perceive futile treatments and scarcity of resources at the end of life. In particular, their perceptions about whether and how resource limitations influence end-of-life decision making. This study builds on previous work that found some doctors include resource limitations in their understanding of the concept of futility. SETTING: Three tertiary hospitals in metropolitan Brisbane, Australia. DESIGN: Qualitative study using in-depth, semistructured, face-to-face interviews. Ninety-six doctors were interviewed in 11 medical specialties. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Doctors' perceptions of whether resource limitations were relevant to their practice varied, and doctors were more comfortable with explicit rather than implicit rationing. Several doctors incorporated resource limitations into their definition of futility. For some, availability of resources was one factor of many in assessing futility, secondary to patient considerations, but a few doctors indicated that the concept of futility concealed rationing. Doctors experienced moral distress due to the resource implications of providing futile treatment and the lack of administrative supports for bedside rationing. CONCLUSIONS: Doctors' ability to distinguish between futility and rationing would be enhanced through regulatory support for explicit rationing and strategies to support doctors' role in rationing at the bedside. Medical policies should address the distinction between resource limitations and futility to promote legitimacy in end-of-life decision making.

Fast and slow thinking; and the problem of conflating clinical reasoning and ethical deliberation in acute decision-making.

Expertise in a medical specialty requires countless hours of learning and practice and a combination of neural plasticity and contextual case experience resulting in advanced gestalt clinical reasoning. This holistic thinking assimilates complex segmented information and is advantageous for timely clinical decision-making in the emergency department and paediatric or neonatal intensive care units. However, the same agile reasoning that is essential acutely may be at odds with the slow deliberative thought required for ethical reasoning and weighing the probability of patient morbidity. Recent studies suggest that inadequate ethical decision-making results in increased morbidity for patients and that clinical ethics consultation may reduce the inappropriate use of life-sustaining treatment. Behavioural psychology research suggests there are two systems of thinking - fast and slow - that control our thoughts and therefore our actions. The problem for experienced clinicians is that fast thinking, which is instinctual and reflexive, is particularly vulnerable to experiential biases or assumptions. While it has significant utility for clinical reasoning when timely life and death decisions are crucial, I contend it may simultaneously undermine the deliberative slow thought required for ethical reasoning to determine appropriate therapeutic interventions that reduce future patient morbidity. Whilst health-care providers generally make excellent therapeutic choices leading to good outcomes, a type of substitutive thinking that conflates clinical reasoning and ethical deliberation in acute decision-making may impinge on therapeutic relationships, have adverse effects on patient outcomes and inflict lifelong burdens on some children and their families.

The Texas Medical Board and the Futility of Medical Exceptions to Abortion Bans.

This Viewpoint describes the failure of yet another state institution to generate meaningful guidance about medical exceptions to abortion bans.

Perception of futile care and caring behaviors of nurses in intensive care units.

OBJECTIVES:: Futile medical care is considered as the care or treatment that does not benefit the patient. Staff of intensive care units experience moral distress when they perceive the futility of care. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the relationship between perceptions of nurses regarding futile medical care and their caring behaviors toward patients in the final stages of life admitted to intensive care units. METHOD:: This correlation, analytical study was conducted with 181 nursing staff of the intensive care units of health centers affiliated to Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Mazandaran, Iran. The data collection tool included a three-part questionnaire containing demographic characteristics form, perception of futile care questionnaire, and caring behaviors inventory. To analyze the data, statistical tests and central indices of tendency and dispersion were investigated using SPSS, version 19. Pearson's correlation coefficient, partial correlation, t-test, and analysis of variance tests were performed to assess the relationship between the variables. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS:: The study was reviewed by the ethics committee of the Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences. Informed consent was obtained from participants. RESULTS:: Our findings illustrated that the majority of nurses (65.7%) had a moderate perception of futile care, and most of them (98.9%) had desirable caring behaviors in taking care of patients in the final stages of life. The nurses believed that psychosocial aspects of care were of utmost importance. There was a significant negative relationship between perception of futile care and caring behavior. CONCLUSION:: Given the moderate perception of nurses concerning futile care, and its negative impact on caring behaviors toward patients, implementing suitable interventions for minimizing the frequency of futile care and its resulting tension seems to be mandatory. It is imperative to train nurses on adjustment mechanisms and raise their awareness as to situations resulting in futile care.

"If an acute event occurs, what should we do?" Diverse ethical approaches to decision-making in the ICU.

The aim of this paper is to analyze an Intensive Care Unit case that required ethics consultation at a University Hospital in Northern Italy. After the case was resolved, a retrospective ethical analysis was performed by four clinical ethicists who work in different healthcare contexts (Italy, the United States, and Switzerland). Each ethicist used a different method to analyze the case; the four general approaches provide insight into how these ethicists conduct ethics consultations at their respective hospitals. Concluding remarks examine the similarities and differences among the various approaches and offer a reflection concerning the possibility of a shared resolution to the case. The authors' efforts to come to a tentative consensus may serve as an example for professionals working in medical contexts that reflect an increasing pluralism of values. This article aims to respond to some of these concerns by illustrating how different methods in clinical ethics would be used when considering a real case. The goal is not to establish the best model (if there is one) on a theoretical level, but to learn from actual practice in order to see if there are common elements in the different methods, and to validate their pertinence to clinical ethics consultation.

When Religion and Medicine Clash: Non-beneficial Treatments and Hope for a Miracle.

Patient and family demands for the initiation or continuation of life-sustaining medically non-beneficial treatments continues to be a major issue. This is especially relevant in intensive care units, but is also a challenge in other settings, most notably with cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Differences of opinion between physicians and patients/families about what are appropriate interventions in specific clinical situations are often fraught with highly strained emotions, and perhaps none more so when the family bases their desires on religious belief. In this essay, I discuss non-beneficial treatments in light of these sorts of disputes, when there is a clash between the nominally secular world of fact- and evidence-based medicine and the faith-based world of hope for a miraculous cure. I ask the question whether religious belief can justify providing treatment that has either no or a vanishly small chance of restoring meaningful function. I conclude that non-beneficial therapy by its very definition cannot be helpful, and indeed is often harmful, to patients and hence cannot be justified no matter what the source or kind of reasons used to support its use. Therefore, doctors may legitimately refuse to provide such treatments, so long as they do so for acceptable clinical reasons. They must also offer alternatives, including second (and third) opinions, as well the option of transferring the care of the patient to a more accommodating physician or institution.

Futility and Patients Who Insist on Medically Ineffective Therapy.

As medical decisions fall under more scrutiny and society demands increasing transparency of care, it is likely that more opportunities for conflicts will emerge. Similarly, with increasing demand and a static supply, the issue of who receives treatment and for how long naturally will arise. This mismatch leads to discussions of resource utilization and limitation of care in light of patients' values and rights. Clinicians should always be forthcoming with the uncertainty of prognostication while also articulating the severity of a patient's disease in relation to the risk and benefits of an intervention. However, dispute over treatment course and the idea of futile care can arise for in a variety of reasons, both from the clinician and the patient. Without identifying the cause of these conflicts, it is impossible to have effective communication. At times, it is important to utilize various negotiating skills when resolving these disagreements. Regardless of the approach, practitioners need more training in and exposure to these types of conflicts. In this review, we provide a framework for the origins and current state of futility, challenges in the application of the term, and recommendations on how to approach conflict in these situations.

A threshold of significant harm (f)or a viable alternative therapeutic option?

This article critically examines the legal arguments presented on behalf of Charlie Gard's parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, based on a threshold test of significant harm for intervention into the decisions made jointly by holders of parental responsibility. It argues that the legal basis of the argument, from the case of Ashya King, was tenuous. It sought to introduce different categories of cases concerning children's medical treatment when, despite the inevitable factual distinctions between individual cases, the duty of the judge in all cases to determine the best interests of the child is firmly established by the case law. It argues that the focus should not have been on a threshold for intervention but on whether his parents had established that the therapy they wanted was a viable alternative therapeutic option. In the April hearing, Charlie's parents relied on the offer of treatment from a US doctor; by July they had an independent panel of international experts supporting their case although by this time the medical evidence was that it was too late for Charlie. One of Charlie's legacies for future disputes may be that his case highlighted the need for evidence as to whether the treatment parents want for their child is a viable alternative therapeutic option before a court can determine which therapeutic option is in the best interests of the child.