Suspensión de soporte vital en el estado vegetativo permanente y muerte digna / Withdrawal of life support in the permanent vegetative state, and a dignified death

Es frecuente que familiares directos soliciten la suspensión de soporte vital, en particular de la hidratación y nutrición asistidas, en pacientes con estado vegetativo o de mínima conciencia permanente, y que recurran a la justicia en caso de desacuerdo. Dos casos recientes de suspensión, uno del exterior y otro argentino, autorizados por los tribunales respectivos, han sido motivo de controversia. Si bien puede parecer inhumano dejar de alimentar e hidratar, continuar haciéndolo solo prolonga un estado de supervivencia biológica irreversible. Las familias tienden a aceptar la suspensión si el paciente se mantiene sin cambios. Sin embargo, persiste preocupación por el posible sufrimiento desde la suspensión hasta la muerte, aunque el mismo es poco concebible en ausencia de función cortical y de conciencia. Si bien médicos y profanos consideran ético suspender el soporte vital, una cierta proporción de médicos considera que en el estado vegetativo, o más aún, en mínima conciencia, efectivamente se experimenta hambre, sed y dolor. En países como el Reino Unido, se han propuesto criterios de suspensión de soporte vital, y esquemas de tratamiento para el malestar durante el período de suspensión, aunque su beneficio efectivo es controvertido. La Argentina cuenta con recomendaciones de dos sociedades científicas, pero no con criterios reglamentados. Pero tanto la Ley 26.742 de "muerte digna" como el Código Civil consienten la suspensión del soporte vital en el estado vegetativo o de mínima conciencia, si se acompaña de medidas de alivio de los síntomas clínicos que puedan significar sufrimiento.

Patient relatives often request withdrawal of life support, especially artificial nutrition and hydration, in cases of permanent vegetative or minimally conscious state, and resort to court in case of disagreement. Two recent cases of withdrawal authorized by the courts concerned, one from abroad and one from Argentina, have been controversial. Although it may appear inhuman to stop feeding and hydrating such patients, to continue it only prolongs a state of irreversible biological subsistence. Families tend to increasingly accept withdrawal if the patient status remains unchanged. However, concern persists regarding the suffering that patients may undergo from onset of withdrawal till death, even though such suffering is little conceivable in the absence of cortical function and conscience content. While doctors and the layman consider ethical to withdraw life support, a nonnegligible proportion of doctors consider that vegetative state patients, even more minimally conscious state patients, do experience hunger, thirst and pain. In some countries, like the United Kingdom, strict withdrawal criteria were proposed, together with pharmacological treatment schemes for the distress arising during the withdrawal period, even though its benefit is controversial. In Argentina, two scientific societies have publicly advocated withdrawal, but not issued formal guidelines. In any case, both "dignified death" Law 26.742 and the Civil Code consent withdrawal of life support, if accompanied by appropriate relief of clinical symptoms indicating suffering.

Opinión de los miembros de la Justicia Nacional en lo Penal y Civil (Familia) en situaciones de limitación del soporte vital en pediatría / Opinions of members of the National Civil (Family Proceedings) and Criminal Courts in withholding or withdrawing of life support situations in pediatrics

Introducción. La posibilidad de sostener artificialmente las funciones vitales hace más difícil diferenciar al paciente en agonía terminal del paciente con posibilidades de supervivencia, lo que pone al grupo que lo rodea frente a un dilema. Por un lado, se presenta la continuación de soporte que solo prolongue un proceso irreversible, que causa daños físicos, psíquicos y a su dignidad. Por otro, la abstención o retiro de soporte vital sin la reflexión y el esfuerzo diagnóstico-terapéutico apropiado puede dejar sin esperanza y llevar a la muerte a un niño potencialmente recuperable. Además, la toma de decisiones, en estas circunstancias, enfrenta diversas barreras que dificultan lograr el mejor interés del paciente. Entre ellas, los temores legales son un factor importante. ¿En qué medida esos temores están justificados? Objetivo. Explorar la opinión del Poder Judicial de la Nación respecto al enfoque que, desde el derecho, se da a situaciones de limitación de soporte vital. Población y métodos. Profesionales activos del ámbito penal, civil y médico forense. Encuesta semiestructurada sobre tres casos hipotéticos con decisiones sobre la limitación del soporte vital. Resultados. Se repartieron 185 encuestas; se contestaron 68 (36,76%) y 51 (30,3%) fueron respondidas en forma completa. No tipificaron ningún delito en ninguno de los tres casos 28 (55%) encuestados. Trece (25%) interpretaron como delitos las decisiones de los tres casos; 6 (12%), alguno de los casos; y 4 (8%), 2 de los 3 casos. Los delitos seleccionados por los encuestados incluyeron homicidio doloso, homicidio culposo y abandono de persona. Conclusiones. El 45% de los encuestados consideraron que hubo alguna forma de delito en las decisiones tomadas.

Introduction. The possibility of sustaining life functions makes it difficult to distinguish between a dying patient and a patient with chances of survival, raising a dilemma for everyone around them. On the one side, continuing with life support techniques that would only extend an irreversible process and result in physical and psychological damage and harm their dignity. On the other side, withholding or withdrawing life support without an adequate reflection and diagnostic-therapeutic effort which may lead to the death of a potentially recoverable child. In addition, making decisions in this context implies facing barriers that hinder the possibility of pursuing the patient's best interest. Among such barriers, the fear of litigation plays a major role. To what extent is this fear justified? Objective. To explore the opinions of the members of the National Judiciary regarding the approach to withholding or withdrawing of life support from a legal stance. Population and methods. Professionals working in the criminal, civil and forensic medicine settings. Semistructured survey on three hypothetical case histories that implied making a decision to withhold or withdraw life support. Results. One hundred and eighty-five surveys were distributed; 68 (36.76%) were partially completed and 51 (30.3%), in full. Twenty-eight (55%) survey respondents did not criminalize any of the three cases presented. Thirteen (25%) respondents considered that the decisions made in the three cases constituted a crime; 6 (12%), only in one case; and 4 (8%), in two out of the three. Crimes described by survey respondents included intentional homicide, wrongful death, and failure to render assistance. Conclusions. Forty-five percent of survey respondents considered that decisions made involved some form of crime.

Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment for Terminal Patients in Korea

No abstract available.

Muerte cerebral materna durante el embarazo / Brain death during pregnancy

The case of a pregnant patient who had a massive intracraneal haemorrhage at 18 weeks of gestation is presented. Patient's neurological damage evolved to brain death, but the fetus continued in good condition. The decision of withdrawing life support or to continue supporting the mother's life to allow fetal development aroused difficult ethical questions, both to relatives and professionals. This is an exceptional situation of a heart beating cadaver and a non viable fetus whose life depends on the continuation of treatments that are considered as experimental. A good decision should be based on the respect to a body in brain death, the fetal right to life, family's wishes and values, the use of experimental treatments, and the rational use of a public hospital's resources. The conclusion was that the continuation of life support treatments was not an ethical obligation. Withdrawing life support to allow fetal death in this case means foregoing an experimental treatment and to respect family's autonomy and the right of the patient's death with dignity. Similar cases need to be discussed with a multidisciplinary analysis in their own particularity