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.

End-of-life practices: An ethical framework for clinicians.

Most hospitalized patients die following a decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment and/or focus on comfort care. Since "Do not kill" is a general ethical norm, many healthcare professionals (HCPs) are uncertain or troubled by such decisions. We propose an ethical framework to help clinicians to understand better their own ethical perspectives about four end-of-life practices: lethal injections, the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, the withholding of life-sustaining therapies, and the injection of sedatives and/or analgesics for comfort care. This framework identifies three broad ethical perspectives that may permit HCPs to examine their own attitudes and intentions. According to moral perspective A (absolutist), it is never morally permissible to be causally involved in the occurrence of death. According to moral perspective B (agential), it may be morally permissible to be causally involved in the occurrence of death, if HCPs do not have the intention to terminate the patient's life and if, among other conditions, they ensure respect for the person. Three of the four end-of-life practices, but not lethal injection, may be morally permitted. According to moral perspective C (consequentialist), all four end-of-life practices may be morally permissible if, among other conditions, respect for persons is ensured, even if one intends to hasten the dying process. This structured ethical framework may help to mitigate moral distress among HCPs by helping them to understand better their own fundamental ethical perspectives, as well as those of their patients and colleagues.

Physician Family Conflict Following Cardiac Arrest: A Qualitative Study.

Comatose survivors of cardiac arrest may die following withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST) due to poor neurologic prognosis. Family members, acting as surrogate decision makers, are frequently asked to decide whether the patient should continue to receive ongoing life-sustaining therapy such as mechanical ventilation in this context of risk of death following removal. Sometimes, physicians and family members disagree about what is in the patient's best interest, and this conflict causes distress for both families and medical personnel.This article examines themes recorded in the medical records of 24 cardiac arrest patients at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) whose families chose to pursue continued life support despite physician recommendations for withdrawal. In documented conversations between patients' families and their providers, the most prominent themes included faith in miracles, the inappropriateness of "playing God," the value of more time with the patient, and differences in how providers and family members perceived the patient's status.

Giving and taking: ethical treatment assignment in controlled trials.

The current version of the Declaration of Helsinki states that 'the benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new intervention must be tested against those of the best current proven intervention(s) … '. This wording implies that it is acceptable for patients to be assigned to receive an unproven new intervention and to be denied a best current proven intervention. We assert that patients being invited to participate in controlled trials cannot, ethically, be expected to forego proven beneficial forms of care. Patients being treated in controlled trials should not knowingly be disadvantaged compared with similar patients being treated in usual clinical care, where they have access to beneficial care. In this article, we have tried to separate for discussion 'the withholding of effective care from trial participants', 'informed consent to treatment', 'blinding' and 'use of placebos'.

Perceptions of Bereaved Caregivers and Clinicians About End-of-Life Care for Patients With Destination Therapy Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Background Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) implanted as destination therapy may receive suboptimal preparation for and care at the end of life, but there is limited understanding of the reasons for these shortcomings. Exploring perceptions of individuals (caregivers and clinicians) who are closely involved in the end-of-life experience with patients with destination therapy LVADs can help identify key opportunities for improving care. Methods and Results We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 7 bereaved caregivers of patients with destination therapy LVADs and 10 interdisciplinary LVAD clinicians. Interviews explored perceptions of preparing for end of life, communicating about end of life, and providing and receiving end-of-life care, and were analyzed using a 2-step team-based inductive approach to coding and analysis. Six themes pertaining to end-of-life experiences were derived: (1) timing end-of-life discussions in the setting of unpredictable illness trajectories, (2) prioritizing end-of-life preparation and decision-making, (3) communicating uncertainty while providing support and hope, (4) lack of consensus on responsibility for end-of-life discussions, (5) perception of the LVAD team as invincible, and (6) divergent perceptions of LVAD withdrawal. Conclusions This study revealed 6 unique aspects of end-of-life care for patients with destination therapy LVADs as reported by clinicians and caregivers. Themes coalesced around communication, team-based care, and challenges unique to patients with LVADs at end of life. Programmatic changes may address some aspects, including training clinicians in LVAD-specific communication skills. Other aspects, such as standardizing the role of the palliative care team and developing practical interventions that enable timely advance care planning during LVAD care, will require multifaceted interventions.

Life-sustaining treatment decisions in pediatric intensive care: an Italian survey on ethical concerns.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how life-sustaining treatment (LST) decisions are made and identify problematic ethical concerns confronted by physicians and nurses in pediatric intensive care within Italy. METHODS: An 88-question online survey was created, based on a previous qualitative study conducted by this team. The survey was designed to identify how LST decisions were managed; contrasting actual practices with what participants think practices should be. Replies from physicians and nurses were compared, to identify potential inter-professional ethical tensions. The study also identified participants' principal ethical concerns. Moreover, open-ended questions elicited qualitative perspectives on participants' views. The survey was pilot-tested and refined before initiation of the study. RESULTS: 31 physicians and 65 nurses participated in the study. Participants were recruited from pediatric intensive care units across five Italian cities; i.e., Florence, Milan, Padua, Rome, Verona. Statistically significant differences were identified for (a) virtually all questions contrasting actual practices with what participants think practices should be and (b) 14 questions contrasting physician replies with those of nurses. Physicians and nurses identified the absence of legislative standards for LST withdrawal as a highly problematic ethical concern. Physicians also identified bearing responsibility for LST decisions as a major concern. Qualitative descriptions further demonstrated that these Italian pediatric intensive care clinicians encounter significantly distressing ethical problems in their practice. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study highlight a need for the development of (a) strategies for improving team processes regarding LST decisions, so they can be better aligned with how clinicians think decisions should be made, and (b) Italian LST decision-making standards that can help ensure optimal ethical practices.

Life-Sustaining Treatment States in Korean Cancer Patients after Enforcement of Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End of Life.

PURPOSE: In Korea, the "Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End of Life" was enacted on February 4, 2018. This study was conducted to analyze the current state of life-sustaining treatment decisions based on National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) data after the law came into force. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of 173,028 cancer deaths were extracted from NHIS qualification data between November 2015 and January 2019. RESULTS: The number of cancer deaths complied with the law process was 14,438 of 54,635 cases (26.4%). The rate of patient self-determination was 49.0%. The patients complying with the law process have used a hospice center more frequently (28% vs. 14%). However, the rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission was similar between the patients who complied with and without the law process (ICU admission, 23% vs. 21%). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who had undergone mechanical ventilation and hemodialysis in the comparative analysis before and after the enforcement of the law and the analysis according to the compliance with the law. The patients who complied with the law process received cardiopulmonary resuscitation at a lower rate. CONCLUSION: The law has positive effects on the rate of life-sustaining treatment decision by patient's determination. However, there was no sufficient effect on the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment, which could protect the patient from unnecessary or harmful interventions.

Preparation and Practice of the Necessary Documents in Hospital for the "Act on Decision of Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End-of-Life".

PURPOSE: Six forms relating to decisions on life-sustaining treatment (LST) for patients at the end-of-life (EOL) in hospital are required by the "Act on Decision of LST for Patients at the EOL." We investigated the preparation and creation status of these documents from the database of the National Agency for Management of LST. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the contents and details of each document necessary for decisions on LST, and the creation status of forms. We defined patients completing form 1 as "self-determined" of LST, and those whose family members had completed form 11/12 as "family decision" of LST. According to the determination subject, we compared the four items of LST on form 13 (the paper of implementation of LST) and the documentation time interval between forms. RESULTS: The six forms require information about the patient, doctor, specialized doctor, family members, institution, decision for LST, and intention to use hospice services. Of 44,381 who had completed at least one document, 36,693 patients had form 13. Among them, 11,531, 10,976, and 12,551 people completed forms 1, 11, and 12, respectively. The documentation time interval from forms 1, 11, or 12 to form 13 was 8.6±13.6 days, 1.0±9.5 days, and 1.5±9.7 days, respectively. CONCLUSION: The self-determination rate of LST was 31% and the mean time interval from self-determination to implementation of LST was 8.6 days. The creation of these forms still takes place when the patients are close to death.

Current Status and Cardinal Features of Patient Autonomy after Enactment of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Act in Korea.

PURPOSE: The main purpose of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Act recently enacted in Korea is to respect the patient's self-determination. We aimed to investigate the current status and features of patient self-determination after implementation of the law. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2018 and January 2019, 54,635 cancer deaths were identified from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database. We analyzed the characteristics of decedents who complied with the law process by self-determination compared with decedents with family determination and with decedents who did not comply with the law process. RESULTS: In multivariable analysis, patients with self-determination were younger, were less likely to live in rural areas, were less likely to belong to the highest income quintile, were less likely to be treated in general hospitals, and were more likely to show a longer time from cancer diagnosis compared with patients with family determination. Compared with patients who did not comply with the law process, patients with self-determination were younger, lived in Seoul or capital area, were less likely to belong to the highest income quintile, were treated in general hospitals, were less likely to have genitourinary or hematologic malignancies, scored higher on the Charlson comorbidity index, and showed a longer time from cancer diagnosis. Patients with self-determination were more likely to use hospice and less likely to use intensive care units (ICUs) at the end-of-life (EOL). CONCLUSION: Decedents with self-determination were more likely to be younger, reside in the Seoul or capital area, show a longer time from cancer diagnosis, and were less likely to belong to the highest income quintile. They utilized hospice more frequently, and received less ICU care at the EOL.

The Situation of Life-Sustaining Treatment One Year after Enforcement of the Act on Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End-of-Life in Korea: Data of National Agency for Management of Life-Sustaining Treatment.

PURPOSE: The "Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End-of-Life" was enacted on February 3, 2016 and went into effect on February 4, 2018 in Korea. This study reviewed the first year of determination to life-sustaining treatment (LST) through data analysis of the National Agency for Management of Life-Sustaining Treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Agency for Management of LST provided data between February 4, 2018 and January 31, 2019 anonymously from 33,549 patients. According to the forms patients were defined as either elf-determinants or family-determinants. RESULTS: The median age of the patient was 73 and the majority was male (59.9%). Cancer patients were 59% and self-determinants were 32.1%. Cancer patients had a higher rate of self-determinants than non-cancer (47.3% vs. 10.1%). Plan for hospice service was high in cancer patients among self-determinants (81.0% vs. 37.5%, p < 0.001). In comparison to family-determinants, self-determinants were younger (median age, 67 years vs. 75 years; p < 0.001) and had more cancer diagnosis (87.1% vs. 45.9%, p < 0.001). Decision of withholding or withdrawing of LSTs in cancer patients was higher than non-cancer patients in four items. CONCLUSION: Cancer patients had a higher rate in self-determination and withholding or withdrawing of LSTs than non-cancer patients. Continued revision of the law and education of the public will be able to promote withdrawing or withholding the futile LSTs in patients at end-of-life. Further study following the revision of the law should be evaluated to change of end-of-life care.

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.

Withdrawing critical care from patients in a triage situation.

The advent of COVID-19 has been the occasion for a renewed interest in the principles governing triage when the number of critically ill patients exceeds the healthcare infrastructure's capacity in a given location. Some scholars advocate that it would be morally acceptable in a crisis to withdraw resources like life support and ICU beds from one patient in favor of another, if, in the judgment of medical personnel, the other patient has a significantly better prognosis. The paper examines the arguments for and against this approach from the point of view of natural law theory, especially using the principle of double effect. We conclude that it is inadmissible to withdraw life-saving medical interventions from patients who are still benefiting from them, on the sole grounds that other patients might benefit more. Those who are currently using such technology should only interrupt their treatment if, in the judgment of medical personnel and, if possible, taking into account the wishes and needs of the patient and his family, the treatment is deemed futile, burdensome, or disproportionate.

Withdrawal of intensive care during times of severe scarcity: Triage during a pandemic only upon arrival or with the inclusion of patients who are already under treatment?

Many countries have adopted new triage recommendations for use in the event that intensive care beds become scarce during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to establishing the exact criteria regarding whether treatment for a newly arriving patient shows a sufficient likelihood of success, it is also necessary to ask whether patients already undergoing treatment whose prospects are low should be moved into palliative care if new patients with better prospects arrive. This question has led to divergent ethical guidelines. This paper explores the distinction between withholding and withdrawing medical treatment during times of scarcity. As a first central point, the paper argues that a revival of the ethical distinction between doing and allowing would have a revisionary impact on cases of voluntary treatment withdrawal. A second systematic focus lies in the concern that withdrawal due to scarcity might be considered a physical transgression and therefore more problematic than not treating someone in the first place. In light of the persistent disagreement, especially concerning the second issue, the paper concludes with two pragmatic proposals for how to handle the ethical uncertainty: (1) triage protocols should explicitly require that intensive care attempts are designed as time-limited trials based on specified treatment goals, and this intent should be documented very clearly at the beginning of each treatment; and (2) lower survival prospects can be accepted for treatments that have already begun, compared with the respective triage rules for the initial access of patients to intensive care.

Saving the most lives-A comparison of European triage guidelines in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

In March 2020, the rapid increase in severe COVID-19 cases overwhelmed the healthcare systems in several European countries. The capacities for artificial ventilation in intensive care units were too scarce to care for patients with acute respiratory disorder connected to the disease. Several professional associations published COVID-19 triage recommendations in an extremely short time: in 21 days between March 6 and March 27. In this article, we compare recommendations from five European countries, which combine medical and ethical reflections on this situation in some detail. Our aim is to provide a detailed overview on the ethical elements of the recommendations, the differences between them and their coherence. In more general terms we want to identify shortcomings in regard to a common European response to the current situation.

Ought Conscientious Refusals to Implement Reverse Triage Decisions be Accommodated?

Although one can argue that they do not represent a radical departure from existing practices, protocols for reverse triage certainly step beyond what is ordinarily done in medicine and healthcare. Nevertheless, there seems to be some degree of moral concern regarding the ethical legitimacy of practicing reverse triage in the context of a pandemic. Such concern can be taken as a reflection of the moral antipathy some exhibit towards current practices of withdrawing treatment-that is, when withdrawal of treatment is arguably in the best interests of patients-and a rejection of the purported normative insignificance of withholding and withdrawing. Given that the relevance of the psychological attitudes of some healthcare professionals to the moral assessment of withdrawing and withholding treatment continues to be debated, it would seem that some thought should be given to the introduction and implementation of reverse triage decisions in response to a pandemic. This brief paper will consider if provision should be made for healthcare professionals to conscientiously refuse to participate in reverse triage.

On "Not Recommending" ECMO.

The neonatologist was describing the dire situation, the complexity of the fetus's anomalies, and the options-comfort care, some resuscitation-and finished by saying, "We would not recommend ECMO …" "We would not recommend" is a curious phrase. There is something ambiguous, very nebulous about it, something passive, noncommittal, maybe even deflective. As a bioethics researcher, I wondered how this phrase is interpreted, how it influences parents' moral deliberation over their options.

Allocating medical resources fairly: the CSG bioethics guide / Asignación justa de recursos médicos: guía bioética del CSG

Abstract On April 12, 2020, a bioethics guide for allocating scarce hospital resources during the current Covid-19 pandemic was posted on the website of the Consejo de Salubridad General (CSG) of the Government of Mexico. The guide, entitled Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia, was intended as a preliminary document, but the website posting did not describe it as a first step in the process. The publicity resulted in a wide array of comments and criticisms. That first version posted on the CSG website contained an age-based criterion for breaking a tie between two or more medically eligible patients who needed of a ventilator: younger patients would have preference over older ones. The final version of the guide eliminated that criterion and instead, relied on the leading public health principle, "save the most lives", without regard to personal characteristics other than the possibility of benefitting from the scarce medical resources.

Resumen El 12 de abril de 2020, se publicó en el sitio web del Consejo de Salubridad General (CSG) del Gobierno de México una guía de bioética para asignar recursos hospitalarios escasos durante la actual pandemia de Covid-19. La guía titulada Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia pretendía ser un documento preliminar, pero la publicación en el sitio web no lo describió como un primer paso en el proceso. La publicación resultó en una amplia gama de comentarios y críticas. La primera versión publicada en el sitio web del CSG contenía un criterio basado en la edad para romper el empate entre dos o más pacientes médicamente elegibles que necesitaran un ventilador: los pacientes más jóvenes tendrían preferencia sobre los de mayor edad. La versión final de la guía eliminó ese criterio y, en cambio, se basó en el principio principal de salud pública, "salvar la mayoría de las vidas", sin tener en cuenta las características personales que no sean la posibilidad de beneficiarse de los escasos recursos médicos.

Guía bioética de asignación de recursos de medicina crítica del Consejo de Salubridad General en México / Bioethics guide on scarce medical resource allocation in Mexico

Resumen El tema bioético sobre la asignación de recursos escasos no es nuevo, todos los países que han sido gravemente afectados por el SARS-CoV-2 han tenido que desarrollar y utilizar guías de triaje. Esto resulta más adecuado pues así la asignación de recursos limitados se hace de manera ética y justa, y no de manera discrecional y abierta a la corrupción. En México, en anticipación a la fase exponencial de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2, el 30 de abril el Consejo de Salubridad General publicó la Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia. Dicha guía tiene como base criterios de justicia social y parte de la tesis: todas las vidas tienen el mismo valor. Este texto tiene como objetivo proporcionar las razones bioéticas y biojurídicas que conforman esta guía de triaje en nuestro país. En resumen, proporciona una breve exploración de las razones éticas que justifican cierta manera específica de asignar recursos escasos en medicina crítica, así como del sustento procedimental apegado a los estándares en materia de derechos humanos.

Abstract The bioethical inquiry about allocating fairly scarce health resources is not new, all countries around the world that were seriously afflicted by SARS-CoV-2 have issued triage guidelines in order to address the dilemmas raised by the pandemic. There is no question about the need to create bioethical guidelines, since its creation provides a degree of certainty that fair and ethical decisions are taken. This also prevents that decisions are made in solitary and maybe motivated by corrupted actions. In Mexico, the creation of this guideline was a proactive and preventive measure to what was unavoidable, the exponential contagion phase of the pandemical scenario caused by Covid-19. On April 30, 2020 the General Sanitary Council published the Bioethical Guide to Allocate Scarce Resources on Critical Care Medicine in Emergency Situation. This guide has at its core that principle of utmost importance in social justice which main thesis is: "All lives have the same value". The aim of this contribution is to provide the ethical and legal principles established in the aforementioned bioethical guideline. In sum, a brief exploration of the ethical reasons that support a specific way to allocate scarce health resources is provided, as well as the foundations of the procedural part from a human rights-based approach.

Improving guideline-mandated care of patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Implantable cardiac defibrillators reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death in selected patients. The value of an implantable cardiac defibrillator declines as the patient's disease progresses. Guidelines suggest that the appropriateness of maintaining implantable cardiac defibrillator therapy be regularly reviewed as part of monitoring of the patient's disease trajectory. It is recommended that implantable cardiac defibrillators are deactivated as patients approach the end of life. Patients with a better understanding of their current state of health and the role that the implantable cardiac defibrillator plays within it are more likely to make informed decisions about the timing of deactivation. METHODS: A quality improvement project was undertaken on appropriate deactivation of implantable cardiac defibrillators within a large tertiary cardiac centre. This was driven by audit data showing inadequate patient communication and documentation around deactivation. Drivers for change included the introduction of electronic data records, clinical review of comorbid patients approaching elective battery change and an ongoing forum for patient and carer education. Measured outcomes included the number of deactivations performed, evidence of patient discussion and consent, and timing of deactivation of the implantable cardiac defibrillator. RESULTS: There were increased numbers of timely device deactivations undertaken following the interventions with improved documented evidence of patient discussion and consent. The educational forum was received favourably. CONCLUSIONS: Focused multidisciplinary interventions can impact favourably on appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator deactivation and improve patient engagement.