A costly separation between withdrawing and withholding treatment in intensive care

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.

Time-Limited Trials for Patients With Critical Illness: A Review of the Literature

TOPIC IMPORTANCE

Since the 1990s, time-limited trials have been described as an approach to navigate uncertain benefits and limits of life-sustaining therapies in patients with critical illness. In this review, we aim to synthesize the evidence on time-limited trials in critical care, establish what is known, and highlight important knowledge gaps.

REVIEW FINDINGS

We identified 18 empirical studies and 15 ethical analyses about time-limited trials in patients with critical illness. Observational studies suggest time-limited trials are part of current practice in ICUs in the United States, but their use varies according to unit and physician factors. Some ICU physicians are familiar with, endorse, and have participated in time-limited trials, and some older adults appear to favor time-limited trial strategies over indefinite life-sustaining therapy or care immediately focused on comfort. When time-limited trials are used, they are often implemented incompletely and challenged by systematic barriers (eg, continually rotating ICU staff). Predictive modeling studies support prevailing clinical wisdom that prognostic uncertainty decreases over time in the ICU for some patients. One study prospectively comparing usual ICU care with an intervention designed to support time-limited trials yielded promising preliminary results. Ethical analyses describe time-limited trials as a pragmatic approach within the longstanding discussion about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining therapies.

SUMMARY

Time-limited trials are endorsed by physicians, align with the priorities of some older adults, and are part of current practice. Substantial efforts are needed to test their impact on patient-centered outcomes, improve their implementation, and maximize their potential benefit.

Limitation of Non-Beneficial Interventions and their Impact on the Intensive Care Unit Costs

Introduction

Using a plan to limit non-beneficial life support interventions has significantly reduced harm and loss of dignity for patients at the end of life. The association of these limitations with patients' clinical characteristics and health care costs in the intensive care unit (ICU) needs further scientific evidence.

Aim of the study

To explore decisions to limit non-beneficial life support interventions, their correlation with patients' clinical data, and their effect on the cost of care in the ICU.

Material and Methods

We included all patients admitted to the general ICU of a hospital in Greece in a two-year (2019-2021) prospective study. Data collection included patient demographic and clinical variables, data related to decisions to limit (withholding, withdrawing) non-beneficial interventions (NBIs), and economic data. Comparisons were made between patients with and without limitation decisions.

Results

NBIs were limited in 164 of 454 patients (36.12%). Patients with limitation decisions were associated with older age (70y vs. 62y; p<0,001), greater disease severity score (APACHE IV, 71 vs. 50; p<0,001), longer length of stay (7d vs. 4.5d; p<0,001), and worse prognosis of death (APACHE IV PDR, 48.9 vs. 17.35; p<0,001). All cost categories and total cost per patient were also higher than the patient without limitation of NBIs (9247,79€ vs. 8029,46€, p<0,004). The mean daily cost has not differed between the groups (831,24€ vs. 832,59€; p<0,716). However, in the group of patients with limitations, all cost categories, including the average daily cost (767.31€ vs. 649.12€) after the limitation of NBIs, were reduced to a statistically significant degree (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Limiting NBIs in the ICU reduces healthcare costs and may lead to better management of ICU resource use.

Withdrawing extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) against a family's wishes: Three permissible scenarios

The ethical permissibility of unilaterally withdrawing life-sustaining technologies has been a perennial topic in transplant and critical care medicine, often focusing on CPR and mechanical ventilation. The permissibility of unilateral withdrawal of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been discussed sparingly. When addressed, authors have appealed to professional authority rather than substantive ethical analysis. In this Perspective, we argue that there are at least three (3) scenarios wherein healthcare teams would be justified in unilaterally withdrawing ECMO, despite the objections of the patient's legal representative. The ethical considerations that provide the groundwork for these scenarios are, primarily: equity, integrity, and the moral equivalence between withholding and withdrawing medical technologies. First, we place equity in the context of crisis standards of medicine. After this, we discuss professional integrity as it relates to the innovative usage of medical technologies. Finally, we discuss the ethical consensus known at the "equivalence thesis." Each of these considerations include a scenario and justification for unilateral withdrawal. We also provide three (3) recommendations that aim at preventing these challenges at their outset. Our conclusions and recommendations are not meant to be blunt arguments that ECMO teams wield whenever disagreement about the propriety of continued ECMO support arises. Instead, the onus will be on individual ECMO programs to evaluate these arguments and decide if they represent sensible, correct, and implementable starting points for clinical practice guidelines or policies.

From Bridge to Destination? Ethical Considerations Related to Withdrawal of ECMO Support over the Objections of Capacitated Patients

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is typically viewed as a time-limited intervention-a bridge to recovery or transplant-not a destination therapy. However, some patients with decision-making capacity request continued ECMO support despite a poor prognosis for recovery and lack of viability as a transplant candidate. In response, critical care teams have asked for guidance regarding the ethical permissibility of unilateral withdrawal over the objections of a capacitated patient. In this article, we evaluate several ethical arguments that have been made in favor of withdrawal, including distributive justice, quality of life, patients' rights, professional integrity, and the Equivalence Thesis. We find that existing justifications for unilateral withdrawal of ECMO support in capacitated patients are problematic, which leads us to conclude that either: (1) additional ethical arguments are necessary to defend this approach or (2) the claim that it is not appropriate to use ECMO as a destination therapy should be questioned.

Medical communication and decision-making about assisted hydration in the last days of life: A qualitative study of doctors experienced with end of life care

BACKGROUND

The impact of assisted hydration on symptoms and survival at the end of life is unclear. Little is known about optimal strategies for communicating and decision-making about this ethically complex topic. Hydration near end of life is known to be an important topic for family members, but conversations about assisted hydration occur infrequently despite guidance suggesting these should occur with all dying people.

AIM

To explore the views and experiences of doctors experienced in end-of-life care regarding communicating with patients and families and making decisions about assisted hydration at the end of life.

DESIGN

Qualitative study involving framework analysis of data from semi-structured interviews.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Sixteen UK-based Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine doctors were recruited from hospitals, hospices and community services from October 2019 to October 2020.

RESULTS

Participants reported clinical, practical and ethical challenges associated with this topic. The hospital setting provides barriers to high-quality communication with dying patients and their families about assisted hydration, which may contribute to the low incidence of documented assisted hydration-related conversations. Workplace culture in some hospices may make truly individualised decision-making about this topic more difficult. Lack of inclusion of patients in decision-making about assisted hydration appears to be common practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Proactive, routine discussion with dying people about hydration-related issues is indicated in all cases. There is room for debate regarding the limits of shared decision-making and the benefits of routine discussion of assisted hydration with all dying people. Clinicians have to navigate multiple barriers as they strive to provide individualised care.

Ethical issues in oncology practice: a qualitative study of stakeholders' experiences and expectations

Background

Clinical Ethics Support Services (CESS) have been established to support healthcare professionals in addressing ethically sensitive issues in clinical practice and, in many countries, they are under development. In the context of growing CESS, exploring how healthcare professionals experience and address clinical ethics issues in their daily practice represents a fundamental step to understand their potential needs. This is even more relevant in the context of extremely sensitive diseases, such as cancer. On this basis, we carried out a qualitative study conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews with stakeholders of a major comprehensive cancer centre in Italy, with the twofold aim of investigating what ethical issues arise in the context of clinical oncology and how they are addressed, as well as stakeholders’ expectations about a potential CESS to be implemented within the Institution.

Methods

The study was conducted within the theoretical framework of Grounded Theory. Participants were healthcare professionals and other key stakeholders working within the cancer centre. The semi-structured interview aimed at exploring common ethical aspects of oncology, investigating stakeholders’ professional experience in dealing with clinical ethics issues, their expectations and requests regarding ethics support services. Transcripts of the interviews were coded and analysed according to the principles of Grounded Theory.

Results

Twenty-one stakeholders were interviewed. Our analysis showed a wide consensus on the identification of ethically relevant issues, above all those concerning communication, end-of-life, and resource allocation. The absence of institutional tools or strategies to address and manage ethical issues at the patient bedside emerged, and this is reflected in the widespread request for their development in the future. The ideal support service should be fast and flexible in order to adapt to different needs and clinical cases.

Conclusions

The interviewees showed a limited degree of ‘ethical awareness’: despite having reported many issues in clinical practice, they could hardly identify and describe the ethical aspects, while  complaining about a lack of ethical resources in their management. To build a truly effective support service, it therefore seems appropriate to take such context into consideration and address the emerged needs. Ethical sensitivity seems to be key and it becomes even more relevant in critical clinical areas, such as the therapeutic pathways of terminally ill patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00803-x.

Modelling futility in the setting of fertility treatment

When is a fertility treatment futile? This question has great practical importance, given the role futility plays in ethical, legal and clinical discussions. Here, we outline a novel method of determining futility for IVF treatments. Our approach is distinctive for considering the economic value attached to the intended aim of IVF treatments, i.e. the birth of a child, rather than just the effects on prospective parents and the health system in general. We draw on the commonly used metric, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), to attach a monetary value to new lives created through IVF. We then define futility as treatments in which the chance of achieving a live birth is so low that IVF is no longer a cost-effective intervention given the economic value of new births. This model indicates that IVF treatments in which the chance of a live birth are <0.3% are futile. This suggests IVF becomes futile when women are aged between 47 and 49 years of age. This is notable older than ages currently considered as futile in an Australian context (∼45). In the UK, government subsidized treatment with the couple's own gametes stops at the age of 42, while privately funded treatments are self-regulated by individual providers. In most European countries and the USA, the 'age of futility' is likewise managed by clinical consensus.

Infant mode of death in the neonatal intensive care unit: A systematic scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To characterize literature that describes infant mode of death and to clarify how limitation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) is defined and rationalized.

STUDY DESIGN

Eligible studies were peer-reviewed, English-language, and included number of infant deaths by mode out of all infant deaths in the NICU and/or delivery room.

RESULT

58 included studies were primarily published in the last two decades from North American and European centers. There was variation in rates of infant mode of death by study, with some showing an increase in deaths following limitation of LST over time. Limitation of LST was defined by the intervention withheld/withdrawn, the relationship between the two practices, and prior frameworks. Themes for limiting LST included diagnoses, low predicted survival and/or quality of life, futility, and suffering.

CONCLUSION

Limitation of LST is a common infant mode of death, although rates, study definitions, and clinical rationale for this practice are variable.

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.

Whom are we seeking to protect? Extremely preterm babies and moral distress

Advances in perinatal care bring with them ethical challenges and difficult questions. When should we provide life-sustaining interventions, and who should decide? Particularly at the edges of viability, some clinicians may feel required to provide a level of care that they believe is not in the patient's interests, resulting in moral distress. This article will discuss the complex nature of moral distress arising during the care of extremely preterm babies. It will describe the challenges and cognitive biases present when contemplating potential harms to the baby and recognize the possible costs to both healthcare provider and baby when moral distress arises. Both clinicians caring for extremely preterm babies and the families themselves can experience moral distress. This article argues that for clinicians, recognizing the range of possible sources of moral distress is vital in order to appropriately address moral distress. Moral distress may arise from a desire to protect the baby, but also from an impulse to protect oneself from the emotional burdens of care. Addressing moral distress requires reflection on the factual beliefs, experiences and personal values which lie behind the distress, both within oneself and in discussion with colleagues. Moral distress indicates that a situation is ethically challenging, but it does not necessarily mean that a wrong decision has been made.

Ethical Duties of Nephrologists: When Patients Are Nonadherent to Treatment

When providing care, nephrologists are subject to various ethical duties. Beyond the Hippocratic notion of doing no harm, nephrologists also have duties to respect their patients' autonomy and dignity, to meet their patients' care goals in the least invasive way, to act impartially, and, ultimately, to do what is (clinically) beneficial for their patients. Juggling these often-conflicting duties can be challenging at the best of times, but can prove especially difficult when patients are not fully adherent to treatment. When a patient's nonadherence begins to cause harm to themselves and/or others, it may be questioned whether discontinuation of care is appropriate. We discuss how nephrologists can meet their ethical duties when faced with nonadherence in patients undergoing hemodialysis, including episodic extreme agitation, poor renal diet, missed hemodialysis sessions, and emergency presentations brought on by nonadherence. Furthermore, we consider the impact of cognitive impairment and provider-family conflict when making care decisions in a nonadherence context, as well as how the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic might affect responses to nonadherence. Suggestions are provided for ethically informed responses, prioritizing a patient-narrative approach that is attentive to patients' values and preferences, multidisciplinarity, and the use of behavioral contracts and/or technology where appropriate.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: Newborn resuscitation and support of transition of infants at birth

The European Resuscitation Council has produced these newborn life support guidelines, which are based on the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) 2020 Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) for Neonatal Life Support. The guidelines cover the management of the term and preterm infant. The topics covered include an algorithm to aid a logical approach to resuscitation of the newborn, factors before delivery, training and education, thermal control, management of the umbilical cord after birth, initial assessment and categorisation of the newborn infant, airway and breathing and circulation support, communication with parents, considerations when withholding and discontinuing support.

[Newborn resuscitation and support of transition of infants at birth]

The European Resuscitation Council has produced these newborn life support guidelines, which are based on the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) 2020 Consensus on Science and Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) for Neonatal Life Support. The guidelines cover the management of the term and preterm infant. The topics covered include an algorithm to aid a logical approach to resuscitation of the newborn, factors before delivery, training and education, thermal control, management of the umbilical cord after birth, initial assessment and categorisation of the newborn infant, airway and breathing and circulation support, communication with parents, considerations when withholding and discontinuing support.

Limitation of life-sustaining treatment in NICU: Physicians' beliefs and attitudes in the Buenos Aires region

OBJECTIVE

To explore the ethical beliefs and attitudes of Argentinean neonatologists regarding limitation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) for very sick infants.

METHODS

We used an anonymous questionnaire including direct questions and hypothetical clinical cases (inevitable demise and anticipated survival with severe long-term disability). Multivariable analysis was carried out to assess the relation between type of clinical case and physicians' LST attitudes.

RESULTS

Overall, 315 neonatologists in 34 units in the Buenos Aires region participated (response rate 54%). Most responders would agree with decisions to start or continue LST. In both clinical cases, continuing current treatment with no therapeutic escalation was the only form of LST limitation acceptable to a substantial proportion (about 60%) of neonatologists. Agreement with LST limitation was slightly but significantly more likely when death was inevitable.

CONCLUSION

Argentinean neonatologists showed a conservative attitude regarding LST limitation. Patient prognosis and options of non-treatment decision significantly influenced their choices.

Formulating an Ethics of Pharmaceutical Disinvestment

There is growing interest among pharmaceutical policymakers in how to "disinvest" from subsidized medicines. This is due to both the rapidly rising costs of healthcare and the increasing use of accelerated and conditional reimbursement pathways which mean that medicines are being subsidized on the basis of less robust evidence of safety and efficacy. It is crucial that disinvestment decisions are morally sound and socially legitimate, but there is currently no framework to facilitate this. We therefore reviewed the bioethics literature in order to identify ethical principles and concepts that might be relevant to pharmaceutical disinvestment decisions. This revealed a number of key ethical considerations-both procedural and substantive-that need to be considered when making pharmaceutical disinvestment decisions. These principles do not, however, provide practical guidance so we present a framework outlining how they might be applied to different types of disinvestment decisions. We also argue that, in this context, even the most rigorous ethical reasoning is likely to be overridden by moral intuitions and psychological biases and that disinvestment decisions will need to strike the right balance between respecting justifiable moral intuitions and overriding unjustifiable psychological impulses.

Time-limited trials: A qualitative study exploring the role of time in decision-making on the Intensive Care Unit

Background

Withholding and withdrawing treatment are deemed ethically equivalent by most Bioethicists, but intensivists often find withdrawing more difficult in practice. This can lead to futile treatment being prolonged. Time-limited trials have been proposed as a way of promoting timely treatment withdrawal whilst giving the patient the greatest chance of recovery. Despite being in UK guidelines, time-limited trials have been infrequently implemented on Intensive Care Units. We will explore the role of time in Intensive Care Unit decision-making and provide a UK perspective on debates surrounding time-limited trials.

Methods

This qualitative study recruited 18 participants (nine doctors, nine nurses) from two Intensive Care Units in North West England for in-depth, one-to-one semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis was performed of the data.

Results

Our findings show time is utilised by Intensive Care Unit staff in a variety of ways including managing uncertainty when making decisions about a patient’s prognosis or the reversibility of a disease, constructing relationships with patients’ relatives, communicating difficult messages to patients’ relatives, justifying resource allocation decisions to colleagues, and demonstrating compassion towards patients and their families.

Conclusions

Time shifts the balance towards greater certainty in Intensive Care Unit decision-making, by demonstrating futility, and can ease the difficult transition for staff and families from active treatment to palliation. However, this requires clear and open communication, both within the Intensive Care Unit team and with the family, being prioritised when time is used in decision-making.

Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment: Ethically Equivalent?

Withholding and withdrawing treatment are widely regarded as ethically equivalent in medical guidelines and ethics literature. Health care personnel, however, widely perceive moral differences between withholding and withdrawing. The proponents of equivalence argue that any perceived difference can be explained in terms of cognitive biases and flawed reasoning. Thus, policymakers should clear away any resistance to accept the equivalence stance by moral education. To embark on such a campaign of changing attitudes, we need to be convinced that the ethical analysis is correct. Is it? In this article, I take a closer look at the moral relation between withholding and withdrawing. My conclusion is that withholding and withdrawing are not in general ethically equivalent. Thus, medical guidelines should be rewritten, and rather than being "educated" away from their sound judgments, medical professionals and patients should have nuanced medico-ethical discussions regarding withholding and withdrawing treatment.

Beyond the Equivalence Thesis: how to think about the ethics of withdrawing and withholding life-saving medical treatment

With few exceptions, the literature on withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment considers the bare fact of withdrawing or withholding to lack any ethical significance. If anything, the professional guidelines on this matter are even more uniform. However, while no small degree of progress has been made toward persuading healthcare professionals to withhold treatments that are unlikely to provide significant benefit, it is clear that a certain level of ambivalence remains with regard to withdrawing treatment. Given that the absence of clinical benefit means treating patients is not only ethically questionable but also taxing on resources that could meet the needs of others, this ambivalence is troubling. Equally, the enduring ambivalence of professionals might be taken to indicate that the issue warrants further attention. In this paper, we review the academic literature on the ethical equivalence of withdrawing and withholding medical treatment. While we are not in outright disagreement with the arguments presented, we suggest that asserting theoretical and decontextualized claims about the ethical equivalence of withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment does not fully illuminate the moral questions associated with the relevant clinical realities. We argue that what is required is a broader perspective, one rooted in an understanding that withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment are different practices, the meanings of which are fully comprehensible only through an appreciation of their place within the practice of healthcare more generally. Such an account suggests that if one is to engage with the inappropriate protraction of life-saving treatment resulting from healthcare professionals' disinclination to withdraw it, then the differences between these practices should be taken seriously.

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.

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

Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment (LST) precede the majority of ICU deaths. Although professional guidelines generally treat the two as ethically equivalent, evidence suggests withdrawing LST is often more psychologically difficult than withholding it. The aim of the experiment was to investigate whether physicians are more supportive of withholding LST than withdrawing it and to assess how physicians' opinions are shaped by their religious characteristics, specialty, and experience caring for dying patients. In 2010, a survey was mailed to 2016 practicing US physicians. Physicians were asked whether physicians should always comply with a competent patient's request to withdraw LST, whether withdrawing LST is more psychologically difficult than withholding it, and whether withdrawing LST is typically more ethically problematic than withholding it. Of 1880 eligible physicians, 1156 responded to the survey (62%); 93% agreed that physicians should always comply with a competent patient's request to withdraw LST. More than half of the physicians reported that they find withdrawing LST more psychologically difficult than withholding it (61%), and that withdrawing LST is typically more ethically problematic (59%). Physician religiosity was associated with finding withdrawal more ethically problematic, but not with finding it more psychologically difficult. Physicians working in an end-of-life specialty and physicians with more experience caring for dying patients were less likely to endorse either a psychological or an ethical distinction between withdrawing and withholding LST. Most US physicians find withdrawing LST not only more psychologically difficult, but also more ethically problematic than withholding such treatment. Physicians' opinions are to some extent shaped by their religious characteristics, specialty, and levels of experience caring for dying patients.

Withdrawing Versus Withholding Freedoms: Nudging and the Case of Tobacco Control

Is it a stronger interference with people's freedom to withdraw options they currently have than to withhold similar options they do not have? Drawing on recent theorizing about sociopolitical freedom, this article identifies considerations that often make this the case for public policy. However, when applied to tobacco control, these considerations are shown to give us at best only very weak freedom-based reason to prioritize the status quo. This supports a popular argument for so-called "endgame" tobacco control measures: If we believe that cigarettes would and should be withheld from entering markets in hypothetical scenarios in which they do not yet exist, then we also have reason to seek their abolition in situations, such as ours, in which cigarettes do exist-if necessary by banning their sale. The same considerations are then used to disarm objections that have recently been raised to using nudges in public policy.

Withholding or withdrawal of treatment under French rules: a study performed in 43 intensive care units

Background

In France, decisions to limit treatment fall under the Leonetti law adopted in 2005. Leading figures from the French world of politics, science, and justice recently claimed for amendments to the law, considering it incomplete. This study, conducted before any legislative change, aimed to investigate the procedural aspects of withholding/withdrawing treatment in French ICUs and their adequacy with the existing law.

Methods

The characteristics of patients qualified for a withholding/withdrawal procedure were prospectively collected in 43 French ICUs. The study period (60 or 90 days under normal operating conditions) took place in the first half of 2013.

Results

During the study period, 777 (14 %) of 5589 admitted patients and 584 (52 %) of 1132 patients dying in the ICU had their treatment withheld or withdrawn. Whereas 344 patients had treatment(s) withheld (i.e., not started or not increased if already engaged), 433 had one or more treatment(s) withdrawn. Withdrawal of treatment was applied in 156 of 223 (70 %) brain-injured patients, compared to 277 of 554 (50 %) patients with other reasons for admission (p < 0.01). At the time of the decision-making, the patient’s wishes were known in 181 (23 %) of the 777 cases in one or more different way(s): 73 (9.4 %) from the patient, 10 (1.3 %) by advance directives, 10 (1.3 %) through a designated trusted person, and 108 (13.9 %) reported by the family or close relatives. An external consultant was involved in less than half of all decisions (356 of 777, 46 %). Of the 777 patients qualified for a withholding/withdrawal procedure, 133 (17 %) were discharged alive from the hospital (126 after withholding, 7 after withdrawal).

Conclusions

More than half of deaths in the study population occurred after a decision to withhold or withdraw treatment. Among patients under withholding/withdrawal procedures, brain-injured subjects were more likely to undergo a withdrawal procedure. The prevalence of advance directives and designated trusted persons was low. Because patients’ preferences were unknown in more than three quarters of cases, decisions remained primarily based on medical judgment. Limitations, especially withholding of treatment, did not preclude survival and hospital discharge.

Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in a patient's best interests: Australian judicial deliberations

Intractable disputes about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity are rare but challenging. Judicial resolution may be needed in some of these cases. A central concept for judicial (and clinical) decision making in this area is a patient's "best interests". Yet what this term means is contested. There is an emerging Supreme Court jurisprudence that sheds light on when life-sustaining treatment will, or will not, be judged to be in a patient's best interests. Treatment that is either futile or overly burdensome is not in a patient's best interests. Although courts will consider patient and family wishes, they have generally deferred to the views of medical practitioners about treatment decisions.

[Rationing, prioritisation, rationalizing: Significance in everyday intensive care]

BACKGROUND

Rationing, even in the treatment of critically ill patients, is the reality on intensive care units. Severity of illnesses and urgency of care are posing high ethical barriers for explicit cost-saving orders. Nevertheless, implicit rationing decisions are a daily ethical minefield, which is not always appreciated by healthcare providers.

METHODS

In this article, typical decision-making situations are described, where limitation of resources plays a role.

RESULTS

The idea of saving resources by rationalising rather than rationing results from the fact that not every patient benefits from the full scope of services available in the intensive care unit, and not every patient desires the full scope of care to be supplied to them. Thus, the irrational use of resources can sometimes be avoided to save them for cases where they are necessary.

Quality of dying in the ICU: is it worse for patients admitted from the hospital ward compared to those admitted from the emergency department?

OBJECTIVE

Although most intensive care unit (ICU) admissions originate in the emergency department (ED), a substantial number of admissions arrive from hospital wards. Patients transferred from the hospital ward often share clinical characteristics with those admitted from the ED, but family expectations may differ. An understanding of the impact of ICU admission source on family perceptions of end-of-life care may help improve patient and family outcomes by identifying those at risk for poor outcomes.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a cohort study of patients with chronic illness and acute respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation who died after admission to an ICU in any of the 14 participating hospitals in the Seattle-Tacoma area between 2003 and 2008 (n = 1,500).

MEASUREMENTS

Using regression models adjusted for hospital site and patient-, nurse- and family-level characteristics, we examined associations between ICU admission source (hospital ward vs. ED) and (1) family ratings of satisfaction with ICU care; (2) family and nurse ratings of quality of dying; (3) chart-based indicators of palliative care.

MAIN RESULTS

Admission from the hospital ward was associated with lower family ratings of quality of dying [β -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.54, -0.26, p = 0.006] and satisfaction (total score β -3.97, 95% CI -7.89, -0.05, p = 0.047; satisfaction with care domain score β -5.40, 95% CI -9.44, -1.36, p = 0.009). Nurses did not report differences in quality of dying. Patients from hospital wards were less likely to have family conferences [odds ratio (OR) 0.68, 95% CI 0.52, 0.88, p = 0.004] or discussion of prognosis in the first 72 h after ICU admission (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56, 0.91, p = 0.007) but were more likely to receive spiritual care (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.14, 1.93, p = 0.003) or have life support withdrawn (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.04, 1.82, p = 0.025).

CONCLUSION

Admission from the hospital ward is associated with family perceptions of a lower quality of dying and less satisfaction with ICU care. Differences in receipt of palliative care suggest that family of patients from the hospital ward receive less communication. Nurse ratings of quality of dying did not significantly differ by ICU admission source, suggesting dissimilarities between family and nurse perspectives. This study identifies a patient population at risk for poor quality palliative and end-of-life care. Future studies are needed to identify interventions to improve care for patients who deteriorate on the wards following hospital admission.

The Durban World Congress Ethics Round Table Conference Report: I. Differences between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments

INTRODUCTION

Withholding life-sustaining treatments (WHLST) and withdrawing life-sustaining treatments (WDLST) occur in most intensive care units (ICUs) around the world to varying degrees.

METHODS

Speakers from invited faculty of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine Congress in 2013 with an interest in ethics were approached to participate in an ethics round table. Participants were asked if they agreed with the statement "There is no moral difference between withholding and withdrawing a mechanical ventilator." Differences between WHLST and WDLST were discussed. Official statements relating to WHLST and WDLST from intensive care societies, professional bodies, and government statements were sourced, documented, and compared.

RESULTS

Sixteen respondents stated that there was no moral difference between withholding or withdrawing a mechanical ventilator, 2 were neutral, and 4 stated that there was a difference. Most ethicists and medical organizations state that there is no moral difference between WHLST and WDLST. A review of guidelines noted that all but 1 of 29 considered WHLST and WDLST as ethically or legally equivalent.

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents, practicing intensivists, stated that there is no difference between WHLST and WDLST, supporting most ethicists and professional organizations. A minority of physicians still do not accept their equivalency.

Eligibility of patients withheld or withdrawn from life-sustaining treatment to organ donation after circulatory arrest death: epidemiological feasibility study in a French Intensive Care Unit

Background

Transplantation brings sustainably improved quality of life to patients with end-stage organ failure. Persisting shortfall in available organs prompted French authorities and practitioners to focus on organ retrieval in patients withdrawn from life-sustaining treatment and awaiting cardiac arrest (Maastricht classification category III). The purpose of this study was to assess the theoretical eligibility of non-heart-beating donors dying in the intensive care unit (ICU) after a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment (WoWt).

Methods

We collected the clinical and biological characteristics of all consecutive patients admitted to our ICU and qualified for a WoWt procedure under the terms of the French Leonetti law governing end-of-life care during a 12-month period. The theoretical organ donor eligibility (for kidney, liver, or lung retrieval) of deceased patients was determined a posteriori 1) according to routine medical criteria for graft selection and 2) according to the WoWt measures implemented and their impact on organ viability.

Results

A total of 596 patients (mean age: 67 ± 16 yr; gender ratio M/F: 1.6; mean SAPS (Simplified Acute Physiology Score) II: 54 ± 24) was admitted to the ICU, of which 84 patients (mean age: 71 ± 14 yr, 14% of admissions, gender ratio M/F: 3.2) underwent WoWt measures. Eight patients left the unit alive. Forty-four patients presented a contraindication ruling out organ retrieval either preexisting admission (n = 20) or emerged during hospitalization (n = 24). Thirty-two patients would have been eligible as kidney (n = 23), liver (n = 22), or lung donors (n = 2). Cardiopulmonary support was withdrawn in only five of these patients, and three died within 120 minutes after withdrawal (the maximum delay compatible with organ viability for donor grafts).

Conclusions

In this pilot study, a significant number of patients deceased under WoWt conditions theoretically would have been eligible for organ retrieval. However, the WoWt measures implemented in our unit seems incompatible with donor organ viability. A French multicenter survey of end-of-life practices in ICU may help to identify potential appropriate organ donors and to interpret nation-specific considerations of the related professional, legal, and ethical frameworks.

Ethical considerations in neonatal end-of-life care

Decisions regarding the end-of-life care of neonates, especially those at the limits of viability, cannot be made on the basis of clinical facts alone. They should take into account the values and beliefs of all concerned. Application of classical moral theories may take insufficient account of the interests of small babies. Due consideration needs to be given to the value and quality of babies' lives, their best interests, and the interests of their parents in practical decision-making. Life-sustaining treatments can be withheld or withdrawn if they no longer serve the baby's best interests, but active euthanasia (though an acceptable practice in The Netherlands) remains illegal in the UK. Withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration can be ethical but remains controversial. If organ donation in UK neonates is to become established it will need to respond to the changing characteristics of neonatal deaths in ways that are ethically and socially sensitive.