An informal clinical ethics committee was set up to advise on ethical problems in prenatal diagnosis in Leeds. It was used twice in six months but was not called on again in the subsequent year, and we describe this experience. In North America similar committees are often used to advise on clinical moral dilemmas, and we review the published evidence from there and discuss some of the advantages and problems. Our committee's advice may have altered clinicians' actions considerably, but perhaps doctors in Britain are not yet ready to surrender this aspect of clinical autonomy. (+info)
Ethical considerations in oncology: balancing the interests of patients, oncologists, and society.
(66/79)
BACKGROUND: Oncologists face ethical dilemmas every day in deciding about choice of treatment, continuation of treatments, events near the end of life, conflicts of interest, and risk management. Yet, many oncologists have limited training in ethics. METHODS: Review of existing studies and definitions of useful terms. Case studies analyzed according to ethical principles. RESULTS: Individual oncology cases can be analyzed according to ethical principles with benefit to the patient, physician, and possibly society. Ethics cannot resolve many of the thorny questions about allocation of resources, justice, or possible conflict of interest. CONCLUSION: Oncology decision-making fits into formal ethical frameworks, and understanding both can help doctors and patients make difficult choices. Understanding of ethical principles can help daily practice, but does not solve current dilemmas of allocation of resources, unrealistic demands, etc. More formal collaboration between hospital ethics committees or personnel and clinical oncologists is recommended for the day-to-day decision-making process. (+info)
Stopping dialysis of an incompetent patient over the family's objection: is it ever ethical and legal?
(67/79)
Decisions to stop dialysis or other life-sustaining treatments for incompetent patients are among the most difficult ethical problems faced by physicians and families. This observation is verified by the large number of court cases and the increasing frequency of ethics consultations on these issues. In such instances, in the absence of an advance directive, the usual practice for physicians is to turn to the patient's family for direction on whether to start, continue, or withdraw the treatment. They do so on the presumption that the family best represents the patient's interests. This presumption may not always be correct. A case is presented in which the family's insistence on continued dialysis was contrary to the patient's previously expressed wishes and the treating physician's assessment of the patient's best interests. It is asserted that, in such situations, after thorough conversation with the family, consultation, documentation, and an unsuccessful attempt to transfer the patient's care to another physician, nephrologists have an ethical obligation and legal right to override the family's decision and to stop dialysis. The ethical obligation is supported by the principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. The legal right is grounded in common law and state statutes. (+info)
In defence of ageism.
(68/79)
Health care should be preferentially allocated to younger patients. This is just and is seen as just. Age is an objective factor in rationing decisions. The arguments against 'ageism' are answered. The effects of age on current methods of rationing are illustrated, and the practical applications of an age-related criterion are discussed. Ageist policies are in current use and open discussion of them is advocated. (+info)
Variation in the attitudes of dialysis unit medical directors toward decisions to withhold and withdraw dialysis.
(69/79)
Increasingly, physicians who treat patients with renal failure are deciding with patients and families whether to withhold or withdraw dialysis. These decisions as well as those concerning whether medical directors of dialysis units felt prepared to make them were studied using three hypothetical scenarios. A questionnaire survey of 524 physician medical directors of adult chronic dialysis units throughout the United States was conducted. They were asked about decisions to withdraw dialysis from a competent patient and a patient with severe dementia, about decisions to withhold dialysis from a permanently unconscious patient, and also about their use of ethics committees to reach these decisions. Three hundred eighteen (61%) responded. Most, 92%, indicated that their units would usually honor a competent patient's request to stop dialysis. There was less agreement about whether to start dialysis in permanently unconscious patients; 83% would withhold dialysis, and 17% would provide it. There was the least agreement about continuing dialysis in patients with dementia; 32% would stop dialysis, and 68% would continue it. Ninety-four percent of medical directors reported that they felt prepared to decide about withholding and withdrawing dialysis. Eighty percent said they might consult a Network ethics committee for difficult decisions. Almost all medical directors of dialysis units believe that they are prepared to make decisions to withhold and withdraw dialysis. Nevertheless, this study revealed significant variation in their attitudes toward these decisions. Practice guidelines and consultation with ethics committees might assist dialysis unit medical directors in making these decisions more uniformly and in a way that promotes patient benefit. (+info)
The roles and functions of hospital-based ethics committees.
(71/79)
Ethics committees ar becoming much more visible on the Canadian health care scene. They range from research-ethics committees that decide whether research projects are ethically sound to case-oriented committees that look at particular issues and give advice. Eike-Henner Kluge says that ethics committees are useful tools, but only when they are appropriately constituted and function in a professional manner. Otherwise, he warns, they become either useless or a liability. (+info)
Prolonging life and allowing death: infants.
(72/79)
Dilemmas about resuscitation and life-prolonging treatment for severely compromised infants have become increasingly complex as skills in neonatal care have developed. Quality of life and resource issues necessarily influence management. Our Institute of Medical Ethics working party, on whose behalf this paper is written, recognises that the ultimate responsibility for the final decision rests with the doctor in clinical charge of the infant. However, we advocate a team approach to decision-making, emphasising the important role of parents and nurses in the process. Assessing the relative burdens and benefits can be troubling, but doctors and parents need to retain a measure of discretion; legislation which would determine action in all cases is inappropriate. Caution should be exercised in involving committees in decision-making and, where they exist, their remit should remain to advise rather than to decide. Support for families who bear the consequences of their decisions is often inadequate, and facilitating access to such services is part of the wider responsibilities of the intensive care team. The authors believe that allowing death by withholding or withdrawing treatment is legitimate, where those closely involved in the care of the infant together deem the burdens to be unacceptable without compensating benefits for the infant. As part of the process accurate and careful recording is essential. (+info)