US Physicians' Opinions about Distinctions between Withdrawing and Withholding Life-Sustaining Treatment

Recovery Potential in Patients Who Died After Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment: A TRACK-TBI Propensity Score Analysis

Among patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), there is high prognostic uncertainty but growing evidence that recovery of independence is possible. Nevertheless, families are often asked to make decisions about withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WLST) within days of injury. The range of potential outcomes for patients who died after WLST (WLST+) is unknown, posing a challenge for prognostic modeling and clinical counseling. We investigated the potential for survival and recovery of independence after acute TBI in patients who died after WLST. We used Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) data and propensity score matching to pair participants with WLST+ to those with a similar probability of WLST (based on demographic and clinical characteristics), but for whom life-sustaining treatment was not withdrawn (WLST-). To optimize matching, we divided the WLST- cohort into tiers (Tier 1 = 0-11%, Tier 2 = 11-27%, Tier 3 = 27-70% WLST propensity). We estimated the level of recovery that could be expected in WLST+ participants by evaluating 3-, 6-, and 12-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) and Disability Rating Scale outcomes in matched WLST- participants. Of 90 WLST+ participants (80% male, mean [standard deviation; SD] age = 59.2 [17.9] years, median [IQR] days to WLST = 5.4 [2.2, 11.7]), 80 could be matched to WLST- participants. Of 56 WLST- participants who were followed at 6 months, 31 (55%) died. Among survivors in the overall sample and survivors in Tiers 1 and 2, more than 30% recovered at least partial independence (GOSE ≥4). In Tier 3, recovery to GOSE ≥4 occurred at 12 months, but not 6 months, post-injury. These results suggest a substantial proportion of patients with TBI and WLST may have survived and achieved at least partial independence. However, death or severe disability is a common outcome when the probability of WLST is high. While further validation is needed, our findings support a more cautious clinical approach to WLST and more complete reporting on WLST in TBI studies.

The Gap in Attitudes Toward Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment Between Japanese Physicians and Citizens

BACKGROUND

According to some medical ethicists and professional guidelines, there is no ethical difference between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. However, medical professionals do not always agree with this notion. Patients and their families may also not regard these decisions as equivalent. Perspectives on life-sustaining treatment potentially differ between cultures and countries. This study compares Japanese physicians' and citizens' attitudes toward hypothetical cases of withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.

METHODS

Ten vignette cases were developed. A web-based questionnaire was administered to 457 citizens and 284 physicians to determine whether they supported withholding or withdrawing treatment.

RESULTS

In a case where a patient had an advance directive refusing ventilation, 77% of the physicians and 68% of the citizens chose to withhold treatment. In a case where there was an advance directive but the patient's family requested treatment, 55% of the physicians and 45% of the citizens chose to withhold the ventilator. When a family requested withdrawal of the ventilator but patient wishes were unknown, 19% of the physicians and 48% of the citizens chose to withdraw the ventilator. However, when the patient had also indicated their wishes in writing, 49% of the physicians and 66% of the citizens chose to withdraw treatment. More physicians were prepared to withdraw dialysis (84%) and artificial nutrition (81%) at a patient's request than mechanical ventilation (49%).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of Japanese physicians and citizens were reluctant to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, even in cases where the patient had indicated their wishes in writing. They were more likely to withhold than withdraw treatment, and more likely to withdraw artificial nutrition than mechanical ventilation. Japanese physicians gave significant weight to family views about treatment but were less likely to agree to withdraw treatment than citizens, indicating a potential source of conflict in clinical settings.

The Complex Ethical and Moral Experience of Left Ventricular Assist Device Deactivation

The left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a fully implantable cardiac replacement device that can complicate the process of dying. We present a case of a patient who attempted to deactivate the LVAD without the support of his medical team. This action was understood as a "suicide attempt" though when the patient was later felt to be dying, LVAD deactivation proceeded without reference to psychiatric illness. To understand this case, we discuss the ethics of LVAD deactivation in the dying process. We then explore the experience of clinicians and the public encountering this unique technology across clinical contexts. We herein present a novel and possibly controversial analysis of the moral complexities of LVAD deactivation and suggest that clinicians be transparent about these complexities with patients and families.

End of life care in the setting of extreme prematurity - practical challenges and ethical controversies

While the underlying principles are the same, there are differences in practice in end of life decisions and care for extremely preterm infants compared with other newborns and older children. In this paper, we review end of life care for extremely preterm infants in the delivery room and in the neonatal intensive care unit. We identify potential justifications for differences in the end of life care in this population as well as practical and ethical challenges.

Reducing Moral Distress by Teaching Healthcare Providers the Concepts of Values Pluralism and Values Imposition

AbstractThere is a clear need for interventions that reduce moral distress among healthcare providers (HCPs), given the high prevalence of moral distress and the far-ranging negative consequences it has for them. Healthcare ethics consultants are frequently called upon to manage moral distress, especially among nursing staff. Recently, researchers have both broadened the definition of moral distress and demarcated subcategories of the phenomenon with the intent of creating more targeted and effective interventions. One of the most frequently occurring subcategories of moral distress in this new taxonomy has been labeled "moral-constraint distress," though scholars have argued that not all constraints on HCPs' moral agency are inappropriate given the often-competing healthcare values of patients, families, and clinical staff. To attempt to reduce the instances of moral distress in cases in which the constraints on HCPs' moral agency are justified, we propose an intervention that focuses on shifting the HCPs' "frame of reference" on moral-constraint distress, teaching HCPs how to distinguish unjustified and justified constraints on their moral agency. The anchors of this blueprint for reducing moral-constraint distress are the philosophical concepts of "values pluralism" and "values imposition." The rationale for this intervention is that, in situations where the constraint on moral agency is justified but the experience of moral distress could nevertheless be severe, the emphasis needs to be on helping the HCP to "think differently" rather than "act differently."

Postponed Withholding: Balanced Decision-Making at the Margins of Viability

Advances in neonatology have led to improved survival for periviable infants. Immaturity still carries a high risk of short- and long-term harms, and uncertainty turns provision of life support into an ethical dilemma. Shared decision-making with parents has gained ground. However, the need to start immediate life support and the ensuing difficulty of withdrawing treatment stands in tension with the possibility of a fair decision-making process. Both the parental "instinct of saving" and "withdrawal resistance" involved can preclude shared decision-making. To help health care personnel and empower parents, we propose a novel approach labeled "postponed withholding." In the absence of a prenatal advance directive, life support is started at birth, followed by planned redirection to palliative care after one week, unless parents, after a thorough counseling process, actively ask for continued life support. Despite the emotional challenges, this approach can facilitate ethically balanced decision-making processes in the gray zone.

Withdrawing or withholding treatments in health care rationing: an interview study on ethical views and implications

Background

When rationing health care, a commonly held view among ethicists is that there is no ethical difference between withdrawing or withholding medical treatments. In reality, this view does not generally seem to be supported by practicians nor in legislation practices, by for example adding a ‘grandfather clause’ when rejecting a new treatment for lacking cost-effectiveness. Due to this discrepancy, our objective was to explore physicians’ and patient organization representatives’ experiences- and perceptions of withdrawing and withholding treatments in rationing situations of relative scarcity.

Methods

Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in Sweden with physicians and patient organization representatives, thematic analysis was used.

Results

Participants commonly express internally inconsistent views regarding if withdrawing or withholding medical treatments should be deemed as ethically equivalent. Participants express that in terms of patients’ need for treatment (e.g., the treatment’s effectiveness and the patient’s medical condition) withholding and withdrawing should be deemed ethically equivalent. However, in terms of prognostic differences, and the patient-physician relation and communication, there is a clear discrepancy which carry a moral significance and ultimately makes withdrawing psychologically difficult for both physicians and patients, and politically difficult for policy makers.

Conclusions

We conclude that the distinction between withdrawing and withholding treatment as unified concepts is a simplification of a more complex situation, where different factors related differently to these two concepts. Following this, possible policy solutions are discussed for how to resolve this experienced moral difference by practitioners and ease withdrawing treatments due to health care rationing. Such solutions could be to have agreements between the physician and patient about potential future treatment withdrawals, to evaluate the treatment’s effect, and to provide guidelines on a national level.

Moral equivalence theory in neonatology

This article explores the ethical concept of "the equivalence thesis" (ET), or the idea that withdrawing and withholding life sustaining treatments are morally equivalent practices, within neonatology. We review the historical origins, theory, and clinical rationale behind ET, and provide an analysis of how ET relates to literature that describes neonatal mode of death and healthcare professional and parent attitudes towards end-of-life care. While ET may serve as an ethical tool to optimize resource allocation in theory, its clinical utility is limited given the complexity of end-of-life care decisions.

Death, Dying, and End-of-Life Care Provision by Doctors and Nurses in the Emergency Department: A Phenomenological Study

There have been significant advancements in the fields of medicine, demography, and pathology. These disciplines have contributed to the classification and control of death and dying. People are now living longer with numerous comorbidities, and there is a significant aging population. Consequently, there have been increases in the numbers of people who present to emergency departments across Australia seeking access to care at the end of life. Emergency department staff must have the knowledge and skills required to provide end-of-life care in a setting that traditionally contradicts the goals of comfort care. With the increase in demand for end-of-life care in emergency departments, a gap exists in the experiences of how staff provide such care in this setting. As a result of this gap, it is important to understand the lived experiences of emergency department doctors and nurses who provide end-of-life care. The aim of this research is to understand the lived experiences of emergency department doctors and nurses concerning death, dying, and end-of-life care provision. Data were analyzed using Diekelmann's 7-step analysis to support Gadamer's phenomenological approach. Results indicate that challenges exist in the decision-making process of end-of-life care in emergency departments.

Muslim American physicians' views on brain death: Findings from a national survey

Background

Biotechnology has introduced a new physiological state, "brain death," that continues to attract controversy and confusion. While variability in diagnostic criteria for, and physician practices regarding, "brain death" has been studied, few studies examine physicians' normative views on the significance of "brain death" and how religiosity implicates these views.

Objective

The objective is to assess how Muslim physicians' views on death, and how their religiosity and acculturation, associate with their perceptions of "brain death."

Methods

A randomized national sample of 626 American Muslim physicians completed a mailed questionnaire assessing sociodemographic characteristics, religiosity, and views about death. Measures of religious practice and acculturation were analyzed as predictors of physician views at the bivariate and multivariable levels. In conducting the multivariate analysis, P-values less than 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

Results

Two-hundred and fifty-five respondents completed the survey (41% response rate). Most participants agreed that death is the irreversible cessation of cardiac and respiratory function (90%), while half agreed or disagreed with other definitions of death, such as loss of personhood or the equivalence of cardiopulmonary and neurological criteria for death. Physicians who scored higher on the religious practice scale had significantly lower odds of agreeing with the statement; "brain death" signifies the departure of the soul from the body [odds ratio (OR) = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.98]. Those who were born in the US, or immigrated to the US as a child, had greater odds of viewing death as the irreversible loss of personhood and consciousness [OR = 3.52, 95% CI: 1.62-7.63].

Conclusion

Physician characteristics such as religiosity and acculturation appear to influence their views on what constitutes death and how it should be diagnosed. In our sample of Muslim physicians, there appears to be significant reservation toward equating neurological and cardiopulmonary criteria to determine death and disquiet regarding the meaning of "brain death" in general.

The Influence of Geography, Religion, Religiosity and Institutional Factors on Worldwide End-of-Life Care for the Critically Ill: The WELPICUS Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association between provider religion and religiosity and consensus about end-of-life care and explore if geographical and institutional factors contribute to variability in practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a modified Delphi method 22 end-of-life issues consisting of 35 definitions and 46 statements were evaluated in 32 countries in North America, South America, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Asia, Australia and South Africa. A multidisciplinary, expert group from specialties treating patients at the end-of-life within each participating institution assessed the association between 7 key statements and geography, religion, religiosity and institutional factors likely influencing the development of consensus.

RESULTS

Of 3049 participants, 1366 (45%) responded. Mean age of respondents was 45 ± 9 years and 55% were females. Following 2 Delphi rounds, consensus was obtained for 77 (95%) of 81 definitions and statements. There was a significant difference in responses across geographical regions. South African and North American respondents were more likely to encourage patients to write advance directives. Fewer Eastern European and Asian respondents agreed with withdrawing life-sustaining treatments without consent of patients or surrogates. While respondent's religion, years in practice or institution did not affect their agreement, religiosity, physician specialty and responsibility for end-of-life decisions did.

CONCLUSIONS

Variability in agreement with key consensus statements about end-of-life care is related primarily to differences among providers, with provider-level variations related to differences in religiosity and specialty. Geography also plays a role in influencing some end-of-life practices. This information may help understanding ethical dilemmas and developing culturally sensitive end-of-life care strategies.

Perceptions of Medical Providers on Morality and Decision-Making Capacity in Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment and Suicide

BACKGROUND

This study attempts to understand if medical providers beliefs about the moral permissibility of honoring patient-directed refusals of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are tied to their beliefs about the patient's decision-making capacity. The study aims to answer: 1) does concern about a patient's treatment decision-making capacity relate to beliefs about whether it is morally acceptable to honor a refusal of LST, 2) are there differences between provider types in assessments of decision-making capacity and the moral permissibility to refuse LST, and 3) do provider demographics impact beliefs about decision-making capacity and the moral permissibility to refuse LST. Methods: A mixed-methods survey using Likert assessment and vignette-based questions was administered to medical providers within a single health system in the upper Midwest (N = 714) to assess their perspectives on the moral acceptance and decision-making capacity in cases of withholding and withdrawing treatment and suicide. Results: Behavioral health providers report accepting of the moral permissibility of suicide (91.2%) more than either medical providers (77.2%) or surgeons (74.4%) (n = 283). Decision-making capacity was questioned more in the vignettes of the patients refusing life-saving surgery (36%) and voluntarily starvation (40.8%) than in the vignette of the patient requesting to deactivate a pacemaker (13%) (n = 283). Behavioral health providers were more concerned about the capacity to refuse life-saving surgery (55.9%) than medical providers (33.8%) or surgeons (23.1%) (n = 283). Conclusions: Respondents endorse the moral permissibility of persons to withhold or withdraw from treatment regardless of motive. Clinical concerns about a patient's treatment decision-making capacity do not strongly correlate to views about the moral permissibility of honoring refusals of LST. Different provider types appear to have different thresholds for when to question treatment decision-making capacity. Behavioral health providers tend to question treatment decision-making capacity to refuse LST more than non-behavioral health providers.

"An indelible mark" the response to participation in euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide among doctors: A review of research findings

INTRODUCTION

The debate regarding euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (E/PAS) raises key issues about the role of the doctor, and the professional, ethical, and clinical dimensions of the doctor-patient relationship. This review aimed to examine the published evidence regarding the response of doctors who have participated in E/PAS.

METHODS

Original research papers were identified reporting either qualitative or qualitative data published in peer-reviewed literature between 1980 and March 2018, with a specific focus on the impact on, or response from, physicians to their participation in E/PAS. PRISMA and CASP guidelines were followed.

RESULTS

Nine relevant papers met selection criteria. Given the limited published data, a descriptive synthesis of quantitative and qualitative findings was performed. Quantitative surveys were limited in scope but identified a mixed set of responses. Where studies measured psychological impact, 30-50% of doctors described emotional burden or discomfort about participation, while findings also identified a comfort or satisfaction in believing the request of the patient was met. Significant, ongoing adverse personal impact was reported between 15% to 20%. A minority of doctors sought personal support, generally from family or friends, rather than colleagues. The themes identified from the qualitative studies were summarized as: 1) coping with a request; 2) understanding the patient; 3) the doctor's role and agency in the death of a patient; 4) the personal impact on the doctor; and 5) professional guidance and support.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Participation in E/PAS can have a significant emotional impact on participating clinicians. For some doctors, participation can contrast with perception of professional roles, responsibilities, and personal expectations. Despite the importance of this issue to medical practice, this is a largely neglected area of empirical research. The limited studies to date highlight the need to address the responses and impact on clinicians, and the support for clinicians as they navigate this challenging area.

"We're Not Ready, But I Don't Think You're Ever Ready." Clinician Perspectives on Implementation of Crisis Standards of Care

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted health care systems' vulnerabilities. Hospitals face increasing risk of periods of scarcity of life-sustaining resources such as ventilators for mechanical respiratory support, as has been the case in Italy as of March, 2020. The National Academy of Medicine has provided guidance on crisis standards of care, which call for the reallocation of scarce medical resources to those who will benefit most during extreme situations. Given that this will require a departure from the usual fiduciary duty of the bedside clinician, we determined and mapped potential barriers to the implementation of the guidelines from stakeholders using an implementation science framework. Methods: A protocol was created to operationalize national and state guidelines for triaging ventilators during crisis conditions. Focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted from July-September 2018 with clinicians at three acute care hospitals of an urban academic medical center. Respiratory therapists, intensivists, nursing leadership and the palliative care interdisciplinary team participated in focus groups. Key informant interviews were conducted with emergency management, respiratory therapy and emergency medicine. Subjects were presented the protocol and their reflections were elicited using a semi-structured interview guide. Data from transcripts and notes were categorized using a coding strategy based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results: Participants anticipated that implementing this protocol would challenge their roles and identities as clinicians including both their fiduciary duty to the patient and their decision-making autonomy. Despite this, many participants acknowledged the need for such a protocol to standardize care and minimize bias as well as to mitigate potential consequences for individual clinicians. Participants identified the question of considering patient quality of life in triage decisions as an important and unresolved ethical issue in disaster triage. Conclusion: Clinicians' discomfort with shifting roles and obligations could pose implementation barriers for crisis standards of care.

Difficulty of the decision-making process in emergency departments for end-of-life patients

BACKGROUND

In emergency departments, for some patients, death is preceded by a decision of withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments. This concerns mainly patients over 80, with many comorbidities. The decision-making process of these decisions in emergency departments has not been extensively studied, especially for noncommunicating patients.

AIM

The purpose of this study is to describe the decision-making process of withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments in emergency departments for noncommunicating patients and the outcome of said patients.

DESIGN

We conducted a prospective multicenter study in three emergency departments of university hospitals from September 2015 to January 2017.

RESULTS

We included 109 patients in the study. Fifty-eight (53.2%) patients were coming from nursing homes and 52 (47.7%) patients had dementia. Decisions of withholding life-sustaining treatment concerned 93 patients (85.3%) and were more frequent when a surrogate decision maker was present 61 (65.6%) versus seven (43.8%) patients. The most relevant factors that lead to these decisions were previous functional limitation (71.6%) and age (69.7%). Decision was taken by two physicians for 80 patients (73.4%). The nursing staff and general practitioner were, respectively, involved in 31 (28.4%) and two (1.8%) patients. A majority of the patients had no advance directives (89.9%), and the relatives were implicated in the decision-making process for 96 patients (88.1%). Death in emergency departments occurred for 47 patients (43.1%), and after 21 days, 84 patients (77.1 %) died.

CONCLUSION

There is little anticipation in end-of-life decisions. Discussion with patients concerning their end-of-life wishes and the writing of advance directives, especially for patients with chronic diseases, must be encouraged early.

Does Decision-making in End-of-life Care Differ Between Graduating Medical Students and Experienced Physicians?

BACKGROUND/AIM

Appropriate decision-making in end-of-life (EOL) care is essential for both junior and senior physicians. The aim of this study was to compare the decision-making and attitudes of medical students with those of experienced general practitioners (GP) regarding EOL-care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire presenting three cancer patient scenarios concerning decisions and ethical aspects of EOL-care was offered to 500 Finnish GPs and 639 graduating medical students in 2015-2016.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 222 (47%) GPs and 402 (63%) students. The GPs withdrew antibiotics (p<0.001) and nasogastric tubes (p=0.007) and withheld resuscitation (p<0.001), blood transfusions (p=0.002) and pleural drainage (p<0.001) more often than did the students. The students considered euthanasia and assisted suicide less reprehensible (p<0.001 in both) than did the GPs.

CONCLUSION

Medical students were more unwilling to withhold and withdraw therapies in EOL-care than were the GPs, but the students considered euthanasia less reprehensible. Medical education should include aspects of decision-making in EOL-care.

Withdrawal Aversion and the Equivalence Test

If a doctor is trying to decide whether or not to provide a medical treatment, does it matter ethically whether that treatment has already been started? Health professionals sometimes find it harder to stop a treatment (withdraw) than to refrain from starting the treatment (withhold). But does that feeling correspond to an ethical difference? In this article, we defend equivalence-the view that withholding and withdrawal of treatment are ethically equivalent when all other factors are equal. We argue that preference for withholding over withdrawal could represent a form of cognitive bias-withdrawal aversion. Nevertheless, we consider whether there could be circumstances in which there is a moral difference. We identify four examples of conditional nonequivalence. Finally, we reflect on the moral significance of diverging intuitions and the implications for policy. We propose a set of practical strategies for helping to reduce bias in end-of-life decision making, including the equivalence test.

Assessing Relationships Between Muslim Physicians’ Religiosity and End-of-Life Health-Care Attitudes and Treatment Recommendations: An Exploratory National Survey

Background:

Research demonstrates that the attitudes of religious physicians toward end-of-life care treatment can differ substantially from their nonreligious colleagues. While there are various religious perspectives regarding treatment near the end of life, the attitudes of Muslim physicians in this area are largely unknown.

Objective:

This article attempts to fill in this gap by presenting American Muslim physician attitudes toward end-of-life care decision-making and by examining associations between physician religiosity and these attitudes.

Methods:

A randomized national sample of 626 Muslim physicians completed a mailed questionnaire assessing religiosity and end-of-life care attitudes. Religiosity, religious practice, and bioethics resource utilization were analyzed as predictors of quality-of-life considerations, attitudes regarding withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, and end-of-life treatment recommendations at the bivariate and multivariable level.

Results:

Two-hundred fifty-five (41% response rate) respondents completed surveys. Most physicians reported that religion was either very or the most important part of their life (89%). Physicians who reported consulting Islamic bioethics literature more often had higher odds of recommending active treatment over hospice care in an end-of-life case vignette. Physicians who were more religious had higher odds of viewing withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment more ethically and psychologically challenging than withholding it and had lower odds of agreeing that one should always comply with a competent patient’s request to withdraw life-sustaining treatment.

Discussion:

Religiosity appears to impact Muslim physician attitudes toward various aspects of end-of-life health-care decision-making. Greater research is needed to evaluate how this relationship manifests itself in patient care conversations and shared clinical decision-making in the hospital.

Withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to examine literature relating to the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST).

RECENT FINDINGS

Discussions regarding end-of-life issues in adults and children are not occurring comprehensively. Discussions relating to the WLST in the pediatric population varies by institution and may vary by race, age, health insurance, diagnosis, and severity of illness. Completing advance directives prior to placement of life-sustaining treatments is not consistent practice. With the WLST, differences in perspectives exist between medical specialties, within one specialty at different levels of training, and in physicians' ethical and psychological responses to the WLST. The timing of WLST appears to be influenced by ICU strain and communication issues. Study outcomes differ regarding the functionally favorable survival of patients who have had WLST. Universal guidelines for the WLST may not address individual patient circumstances.

SUMMARY

Discussions of end-of-life issues early in the course of a patient's health care will contribute to the healthcare team's understanding and respect of the patient's wishes. This article addresses the withdrawal of left ventricular assist devices; attending physicians and physicians in training perspectives of WLST; do physicians distinguish between withholding and WLST; the timing of WLST; guidelines for the process of WLST; and pediatrics and end-of-life decisions.

Death, Devices, and Double Effect

Along with the growing utilization of the total artificial heart (TAH) comes a new set of ethical issues that have, surprisingly, received little attention in the literature: (1) How does one apply the criteria of irreversible cessation of circulatory function (a core concept in the Uniformed Determination of Death Act) given that a TAH rarely stops functioning on its own? (2) Can one appeal to the doctrine of double effect as an ethical rationale for turning off a TAH given that this action directly results in death? And, (3) On what ethical grounds can a physician turn off a TAH in view of the fact that either the intent of such an action or the outcome is always, and necessarily, death? The aim of this article is not to answer these questions but to highlight why these questions must be explored in some depth given the growing use of TAH technology.

Does special education in palliative medicine make a difference in end-of-life decision-making?

Background

Characteristics of the physician influence the essential decision-making in end-of-life care. However, the effect of special education in palliative medicine on different aspects of decision-making in end-of-life care remains unknown. The aim of this study was to explore the decision-making in end-of-life care among physicians with or without special competency in palliative medicine (cPM).

Methods

A questionnaire including an advanced lung cancer patient-scenario with multiple decision options in end-of-life care situation was sent to 1327 Finnish physicians. Decisions to withdraw or withhold ten life-prolonging interventions were asked on a scale from 1 (definitely would not) to 5 (definitely would) – first, without additional information and then after the family’s request for aggressive treatment and the availability of an advance directive. Values from chronological original scenario, family’s appeal and advance directive were clustered by trajectory analysis.

Results

We received 699 (53%) responses. The mean values of the ten answers in the original scenario were 4.1 in physicians with cPM, 3.4 in general practitioners, 3.4 in surgeons, 3.5 in internists and 3.8 in oncologists (p < 0.05 for physicians with cPM vs. oncologists and p < 0.001 for physicians with cPM vs. others). Younger age and not being an oncologist or not having cPM increased aggressive treatment decisions in multivariable logistic regression analysis. The less aggressive approach of physicians with cPM differed between therapies, being most striking concerning intravenous hydration, nasogastric tube and blood transfusions. The aggressive approach increased by the family’s request (p < 0.001) and decreased by an advance directive (p < 0.001) in all physicians, regardless of special education in palliative medicine.

Conclusion

Physicians with special education in palliative medicine make less aggressive decisions in end-of-life care. The impact of specialty on decision-making varies among treatment options. Education in end-of-life care decision-making should be mandatory for young physicians and those in specialty training.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-018-0349-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A few realistic questions raised by organ retrieval in the intensive care unit

Organ transplantation saves the lives of many persons who would otherwise die from end-stage organ disease. The increasing demand for donated organs has led to a renewed interest in donation after circulatory determination of death (CDD). In many countries (including France), terminally ill patients who die of circulatory arrest after a planned withdrawal of life support may be considered as organ donors under certain conditions. While having equal responsibility towards the potential donor and the persons awaiting a transplant, caregivers may experience an ethical dilemma between the responsibility to deliver the best care to the dying, and the need to retrieve the organs. Once it has been established that the patient wishes to be a donor, we assume that end-of-life care and organ donation may have convergent goals when they contribute to transforming a comfortable death into a chance of life for others in need.

Oncologists' and Intensivists' Attitudes Toward the Care of Critically Ill Patients with Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer represent an important proportion of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. Oncologists and intensivists have distinct knowledge backgrounds, and conflicts about the appropriate management of these patients may emerge.

METHODS

We surveyed oncologists and intensivists at 2 academic cancer centers regarding their management of 2 hypothetical patients with different cancer types (metastatic pancreatic cancer and metastatic breast cancer with positive receptors for estrogen, progesterone, and HER-2) who develop septic shock and multiple organ failure.

RESULTS

Sixty intensivists and 46 oncologists responded to the survey. Oncologists and intensivists similarly favored withdrawal of life support measures for the patient with pancreatic cancer (33/46 [72%] vs 48/60 [80%], P = .45). On the other hand, intensivists favored more withdrawal of life support measures for the patient with breast cancer compared to oncologists (32/59 [54%] vs 9/44 [21%], P < .001). In the multinomial logistic regression, the oncology specialists were more likely to advocate for a full-code status for the patient with breast cancer (OR = 5.931; CI 95%, 1.762-19.956; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologists and intensivists share different views regarding life support measures in critically ill patients with cancer. Oncologists tend to focus on the cancer characteristics, whereas intensivists focus on multiple organ failure when weighing in on the same decisions. Regular meetings between oncologists and intensivists may reduce possible conflicts regarding the critical care of patients with cancer.

Decisions regarding forgoing life-sustaining treatments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Decisions to forego life-sustaining treatments are complex, and disagreements between physicians and patients occur. This review discusses recent findings regarding what factors influence physicians and patients or their surrogates in these decisions and considers whether futility arguments regarding life-sustaining treatments should be abandoned.

RECENT FINDINGS

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is one paradigm in the literature for studying end-of-life decision-making. Outcomes for cardiopulmonary resuscitation are poor, and physicians tend to over-rely on tacit versus evidence-based knowledge for resuscitation decisions. Physician decisions are often inherently biased regarding elderly and intellectually impaired patients. Patient decisions regarding life-sustaining treatments are poorly understood by physicians, and also include inherent bias against the elderly and intellectually impaired. Although patients and their decision-makers frequently incorporate religious or spiritual beliefs in their decisions, physicians rarely discuss these factors with them. Defining 'futility' is problematic, and futility arguments have limited utility in clinical end-of-life treatment discussions.

SUMMARY

Further research is needed about factors that affect both physicians and patients with regard to forgoing life-sustaining interventions. Physicians need more information regarding religious/spiritual preferences of patients and decision-makers. 'Futility' arguments in end-of-life decision-making are flawed and should probably be abandoned.