Search

Decision-making bringing to an admission or not in intensive care is complex. The aim of this study is to analyze with an ethical point of view the making decision process leading to the refusal and its consequences. It is proposed a setting in prospect through the principles of beneficence, non-maleficience, respect for autonomy, justice, and the Leonetti law.Prospective study in surgical reanimation at the University Hospital of Rouen over 9 months (November 2007-September 2008). Systematic collection for each non-admitted patient of the general characters, the methods of decision making, immediate becoming and within 48 h Constitution of two groups: patients for whom an admission in intensive care could be an unreasonable situation of obstinacy, and patients for whom an admission in reanimation would not be about unreasonable if it occurred.One hundred and fifty situations were analyzed. The potentially unreasonable character of an admission does not involve necessarily a refusal of care in intensive care. The question of the lack of place and equity in the access to the care is real but relative according to the typology of the patients. The research of the respect of the autonomy of the patient is difficult but could be facilitated. The Leonetti law does not appear to be able to be a framework with the situation of refusal of care in intensive care.It is not a question of going towards a systematic admission in intensive care of any patient proposed, but to make sure that so if there is a refusal, it is carried out according to a step ethically acceptable.

International audience; The age does not seem a determining element. It cannot solve the question which is to know if the admission in reanimation is relevant or not for the patient proposed. More than the admission or not of a possibly old subject in reanimation, the problem lies in the resolution with accuracy of the acute dilemma which is the decision-making to admit or refuse a patient whatever it is for the benefit of the person.