Not if, but how: one way to talk with patients about forgoing life support.
(9/307)
May the common clinical conversation be used to explore whether or not seriously ill patients want to talk about possible limitations of life support? In order to answer this question, a series of 20 seriously ill patients took part in an interview. The clinical conversations were taped and transcribed, and recurrent themes were identified and organised into categories. After talking about their diagnosis and prognosis, most patients said it was natural to talk about possible limitations of life support, and a substantial number immediately indicated that they did not want any life-sustaining treatment. Although their emotional reactions were different, no one seemed to be upset by talking about such issues. Many but not all patients said that they wanted a family member and possibly also a nurse to participate in the conversation. Every doctor learns to conduct a clinical conversation and this approach may be applied when talking with seriously ill patients about difficult treatment decisions. (+info)
Re-examining death: against a higher brain criterion.
(10/307)
While there is increasing pressure on scarce health care resources, advances in medical science have blurred the boundary between life and death. Individuals can survive for decades without consciousness and individuals whose whole brains are dead can be supported for extended periods. One suggested response is to redefine death, justifying a higher brain criterion for death. This argument fails because it conflates two distinct notions about the demise of human beings--the one, biological and the other, ontological. Death is a biological phenomenon. This view entails the rejection of a higher brain criterion of death. Moreover, I claim that the justification of the whole brain (or brain stem) criterion of death is also cast into doubt by these advances in medical science. I proceed to argue that there is no need to redefine death in order to identify which treatments ought to be provided for the permanently and irreversibly unconscious. There are already clear treatment guidelines. (+info)
Decisions at the end of life.
(11/307)
This paper presents a system for making decisions at the end of life. It emphasizes the role of patient autonomy and the importance of patient and family participation with the physician in decision-making. Definitions are presented for the terms: terminal illness, withholding and withdrawing life sustaining treatment, physician assisted suicide and euthanasia. Three cases are briefly described to illustrate the application of the decision-making system. A detailed discussion is then presented of the divergent views expressed by different authors about the moral differences or similarities between foregoing life sustaining treatment and physician assistance in dying. It is concluded that the view that these two actions are fundamentally different, as supported by the United States Supreme Court, in 1997, is the correct one. Physician assisted suicide (PAS) remains a controversial issue. Physicians and societies in individual countries must work out their own approaches to PAS. However, foregoing invasive or intensive life support in terminally ill patients consistent with their wishes is considered appropriate. (+info)
What do trainees think about advanced trauma life support (ATLS)?
(12/307)
Advanced trauma life support (ATLS) has become a desirable or even essential part of training for many surgeons and anaesthetists, but aspects of the ATLS course have attracted criticism. In the absence of published data on the views of trainees, this study sought their opinions in a structured questionnaire, which was completed by trainees in accident and emergency (A & E) (26), anaesthetic (82), general surgical (26), orthopaedic (42) and other (5) posts in different hospitals (response rate 66%). Of the trainees, 78% had done an ATLS course and, of these, 83% considered ATLS a 'major advantage' or 'essential' for practising their proposed specialty--100% for A & E, 94% for orthopaedics, 92% for general surgery, and 75% for anaesthetics. ATLS was considered a major curriculum vitae (CV) advantage by 94%, 85%, 50%, and 45%, respectively. Over 90% had positive attitudes towards ATLS, and 74% selected 'genuine improvement of management of trauma patients' as the most important reason for doing the course: 93% thought ATLS saved lives. Of the respondents, 83% thought that all existing consultants dealing with trauma patients should have done the course, and 41% thought it offered major advantages to doctors not involved in trauma. Funding problems for ATLS courses had been experienced by 14% trainees. This survey has shown that most trainees view ATLS positively. They believe that it provides genuine practical benefit for patients, and very few regard ATLS primarily as a career advantage or mandate. (+info)
Treating electrical storm : sympathetic blockade versus advanced cardiac life support-guided therapy.
(13/307)
BACKGROUND: Electrical storm (ES), defined as recurrent multiple ventricular fibrillation (VF) episodes, often occurs in patients with recent myocardial infarction. Because treating ES according to the Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) guidelines yields a poor outcome, we evaluated the efficacy of sympathetic blockade in treating ES patients and compared their outcome with that of patients treated according to the ACLS guidelines. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (36 men, 13 women, mean age 57+/-10 years) who had ES associated with a recent myocardial infarction were separated into 2 groups. Patients in group 1 (n=27) received sympathetic blockade treatment: 6 left stellate ganglionic blockade, 7 esmolol, and 14 propranolol. Patients in group 2 (n=22) received antiarrhythmic medication as recommended by the ACLS guidelines. Patient characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. The 1-week mortality rate was higher in group 2: 18 (82%) of the 22 patients died, all of refractory VF; 6 (22%) of the 27 group 1 patients died, 3 of refractory VF (P<0.0001). Patients who survived the initial ES event did well over the 1-year follow-up period: Overall survival in group 1 was 67%, compared with 5% in group 2 (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Sympathetic blockade is superior to the antiarrhythmic therapy recommended by the ACLS guidelines in treating ES patients. Our study emphasizes the role of increased sympathetic activity in the genesis of ES. Sympathetic blockade-not class 1 antiarrhythmic drugs-should be the treatment of choice for ES. (+info)
Are medical ethicists out of touch? Practitioner attitudes in the US and UK towards decisions at the end of life.
(14/307)
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether UK and US health care professionals share the views of medical ethicists about medical futility, withdrawing/withholding treatment, ordinary/extraordinary interventions, and the doctrine of double effect. DESIGN, SUBJECTS AND SETTING: A 138-item attitudinal questionnaire completed by 469 UK nurses studying the Open University course on "Death and Dying" was compared with a similar questionnaire administered to 759 US nurses and 687 US doctors taking the Hastings Center course on "Decisions near the End of Life". RESULTS: Practitioners accept the relevance of concepts widely disparaged by bioethicists: double effect, medical futility, and the distinctions between heroic/ordinary interventions and withholding/withdrawing treatment. Within the UK nurses' group a "rationalist" axis of respondents who describe themselves as having "no religion" are closer to the bioethics consensus on withholding and withdrawing treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals' beliefs differ substantially from the recommendations of their professional bodies and from majority opinion in bioethics. Bioethicists should be cautious about assuming that their opinions will be readily accepted by practitioners. (+info)
Cost and outcome of mechanical ventilation for life-threatening stroke.
(15/307)
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hospital mortality rates of 50% to 90% have been reported for stroke patients treated with mechanical ventilation. These data have raised serious questions about the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. We sought to determine how often stroke patients are mechanically ventilated, identify predictors of 30-day survival among ventilated patients, and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this intervention. METHODS: We identified mechanically ventilated patients in a population-based multiethnic cohort of 510 incidence stroke patients who were hospitalized between July 1993 and June 1996. Factors affecting 30-day survival were identified in a multiple logistic regression analysis. We calculated the cost per patient discharged alive, life-year saved, and quality-adjusted life-year saved using a zero-cost, zero-life assumption. RESULTS: Ten percent of patients (n=52) were mechanically ventilated. Thirty-day mortality was 65% overall and did not differ significantly by stroke subtype. Glasgow Coma Scale score on the day of intubation (P:<0.01) and subsequent neurological deterioration (P:=0.02) were identified as predictors of 30-day mortality. The cost (1996 US dollars) of hospitalization per patient discharged alive was $89 400; the cost per year of life saved was $37 600; and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year saved was $174 200. Functional status of most survivors was poor; at 6 months, half were severely disabled and completely dependent. In a worst-case scenario of quality of life preferences, mechanical ventilation resulted in a net deficit of meaningful survival. CONCLUSIONS: Two thirds of mechanically ventilated stroke patients die during their hospitalization, and most survivors are severely disabled. Survival is particularly unlikely if patients are deeply comatose or clinically deteriorate after intubation. In our multiethnic urban population, mechanical ventilation for stroke was relatively cost-effective for extending life but not for preserving quality of life. (+info)
The decision making process regarding the withdrawal or withholding of potential life-saving treatments in a children's hospital.
(16/307)
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the factors considered by staff, and the practicalities involved in the decision making process regarding the withdrawal or withholding of potential life-sustaining treatment in a children's hospital. To compare our current practice with that recommended by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) guidelines, published in 1997. DESIGN: A prospective, observational study using self-reported questionnaires. SETTING: Tertiary paediatric hospital. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients identified during a six-month period, about whom a formal discussion took place between medical staff, nursing staff and family regarding the withholding or withdrawal of potentially life-sustaining treatments. The primary physician and primary nurse involved in the discussion were identified. METHOD: Two questionnaires completed independently by the primary physician and nurse. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were identified (median age 1 year; range 1 day-34 years). In 20 cases treatment was withdrawn or withheld, in two cases treatment was continued. Nursing staff considered family wishes and family perceptions of patient suffering as significantly more important factors in decision making than medical staff, who considered prognostic factors as most important. In only two cases were the patient's expressed wishes apparently available. In most cases staff considered the patient's best interests were served and the process would not be enhanced by the involvement of an independent ethics committee. The exceptions were those cases in which treatment was continued following disagreement between parties. CONCLUSIONS: Our current practice is consistent with that recommended by the RCPCH. The contribution of the patient, provision of staff counselling and general practitioner (GP) involvement were identified as areas for improvement. (+info)