Search

Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) in neonates can cause severe, life-long functional impairments or death. Treatment of these neonates can involve ethically challenging questions about if, when, and how it may be appropriate to limit life-sustaining medical therapy. Further, parents whose infants suffer severe neurologic damage may seek recourse in the form of a medical malpractice lawsuit. This study uses several hypothetical cases to highlight important ethical and legal considerations in the care of infants with HIE., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The medical progress has produced improvements in critically ill patients' survival to early phases of life-threatening diseases, thus producing long intensive care stays and persisting disability, with uncertain long-term survival rates and quality of life. Thus, compassionate end-of-life care and the provision of palliative care, even overlapping with the most aggressive of curative intensive care unit (ICU) care has become crucial. Moreover, withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment may be adopted, allowing unavoidable deaths to occur, without prolonging agony or ICU stay. Our aim was to summarize the key element of end-of-life care in the ICU and the ethics of withholding/withdrawal life-sustaining treatments., Competing Interests: Disclosure All authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in end-of-life patients is a challenging ethical issue faced by physicians. Understanding physicians' experiences and factors influencing their decisions can lead to improvement in end-of-life care., Objectives: To investigate the experiences of Thai physicians when making decisions regarding the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in end-of-life situations. Additionally, the study aims to assess the consensus among physicians regarding the factors that influence these decisions and to explore the influence of families or surrogates on the decision-making process of physicians, utilizing case-based surveys., Methods: A web-based survey was conducted among physicians practicing in Chiang Mai University Hospital (June - October 2022)., Results: Among 251 physicians (response rate 38.3%), most of the respondents (60.6%) reported that they experienced withholding or withdrawal treatment in end-of-life patients. Factors that influence their decision-making include patient's preferences (100%), prognosis (93.4%), patients' quality of life (92.8%), treatment burden (89.5%), and families' request (87.5%). For a chronic disease with comatose condition, the majority of the physicians (47%) chose to continue treatments, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In contrast, only 2 physicians (0.8%) would do everything, in cases when families or surrogates insisted on stopping the treatment. This increased to 78.1% if the families insisted on continuing treatment., Conclusion: Withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments are common in Thailand. The key factors influencing their decision-making process included patient's preferences and medical conditions and families' requests. Effective communication and early engagement in advanced care planning between physicians, patients, and families empower them to align treatment choices with personal values., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The use of policies in medical treatment reimbursement decisions, in which only future patients are affected, prompts a moral dilemma: is there an ethical difference between withdrawing and withholding treatment?, Design: Through a preregistered behavioral experiment involving 1,067 participants, we tested variations in public attitudes concerning withdrawing and withholding treatments at both the bedside and policy levels., Results: In line with our first hypothesis, participants were more supportive of rationing decisions presented as withholding treatments compared with withdrawing treatments. Contrary to our second prestated hypothesis, participants were more supportive of decisions to withdraw treatment made at the bedside level compared with similar decisions made at the policy level., Implications: Our findings provide behavioral insights that help explain the common use of policies affecting only future patients in medical reimbursement decisions, despite normative concerns of such policies. In addition, our results may have implications for communication strategies when making decisions regarding treatment reimbursement., Highlights: We explore public' attitudes toward withdrawing and withholding treatments and how the decision level (bedside or policy level) matters.People were more supportive of withholding medical treatment than of withdrawing equivalent treatment.People were more supportive of treatment withdrawal made at the bedside than at the policy level.Our findings help clarify why common-use policies, which impact only future patients in medical reimbursement decision, are implemented despite the normative concerns associted with thesepolicies., Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Clinical conversations surrounding the continuation or limitation of life-sustaining therapies (LLST) are both challenging and tragically necessary for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) following severe brain injury. Divergent cultural, philosophical and religious perspectives contribute to vast heterogeneity in clinical approaches to LLST-as reflected in regional differences and inter-clinician variability. Here we provide an ethical analysis of factors that inform LLST decisions among patients with DoC. We begin by introducing the clinical and ethical challenge and clarifying the distinction between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining therapy. We then describe relevant factors that influence LLST decision-making including diagnostic and prognostic uncertainty, perception of pain, defining a 'good' outcome, and the role of clinicians. In concluding sections, we explore global variation in LLST practices as they pertain to patients with DoC and examine the impact of cultural and religious perspectives on approaches to LLST. Understanding and respecting the cultural and religious perspectives of patients and surrogates is essential to protecting patient autonomy and advancing goal-concordant care during critical moments of medical decision-making involving patients with DoC., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Moral distress can impact nurses and the care team significantly. A profession dedicated to the principles of caring and compassion is often subjected to patients receiving futile treatment. With the proliferation of extreme life-prolonging measures come the difficulties in the withdrawal of those medical modalities. If a prognosis is poor and care is perceived as curative rather than palliative, providers may often feel conflicted and distressed by their interventions. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing has expressed growing concern about an increase in the use of inappropriate life-support treatments related to futile care. The compelling case of a severely beaten 69-year-old homeless man who had cardiac-arrested and was resuscitated after an unknown amount of down-time, provides the contextual framework for this report. Ethical conflicts can become very challenging, which inevitably increases the suffering of the patient and their caregivers. Research findings suggest that health care organizations can benefit from enacting processes that make ethical considerations an early and routine part of everyday clinical practice. A proactive approach to ethical conflicts may improve patient care outcomes and decrease moral distress., Competing Interests: The author has no conflicts of interest in the manuscript, including financial, consultant, institutional, and other relationships that might lead to bias or a conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This study aimed to assess beliefs and attitudes of Argentinean neonatologists and neonatal nurses regarding end-of-life care of newborn infants, including withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH)., Study Design: A five-domain survey was sent to 465 neonatal health care workers, which included demographic data, general ethical concepts, participation in end-of-life decisions, beliefs about end-of-life care practices, and presentation of four clinical scenarios. Standard statistical tests were used, and a multivariable analysis was done to evaluate variables independently associated with rejecting the withdrawal of CANH., Results: A total of 227 questionnaires were anonymously completed, 60% by physicians and 40% by nurses. More respondents agreed to withdraw mechanical ventilation in comparison to CANH in patients under certain circumstances (88 vs. 62%, p  < 0.01). The most accepted variables when deciding to withdraw care were the quality of life perceived by parents (86%) and their religious beliefs (73%). A total of 93% agreed that parents should be included in the decision, but only 74% acknowledged they are included in real practice. Considering the scenario of a newborn with severe and irreversible neurological compromise, 46% of respondents were opposed to suspending enteral nutrition. No independent variables were found to be associated with opposing the withdrawal of CANH. Of those agreeing to withdraw enteral feeds under certain circumstances, for the severely neurologically affected neonate 58% would either refuse to limit enteral feeds or consult with an ethics committee before doing so. When given the scenario of their own severe and irreversible neurological compromise, 68% agreed to have enteral feeds withdrawn to themselves, and they were more likely to agree with withdrawing feeds for the severely compromised neonate (odds ratio: 7.2; 95% confidence interval: 2.7-24.1)., Conclusion: While most health care providers agreed to withdraw life-sustaining support under certain conditions, many were reluctant to suspend CANH. Many responses differed when being asked as general statements versus actual clinical scenarios., Key Points: · Withdrawal of assisted nutrition is supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics in certain scenarios.. · Many neonatal intensive care units health care providers from Argentina are reluctant to suspend assisted nutrition.. · There is a need to learn how to deal with complex bioethical issues.., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Increasing numbers of older patients are being admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) as the world's population ages. The biological process of ageing, senescence, results in altered ability to maintain normal homeostasis and organ function, including of the cardiovascular, immune, and neuromuscular systems. This contributes towards increased frailty in older patients, associated with functional limitations and increased vulnerability. Although widely defined using chronological age, the concept of "old age" is thus multifactorial, including biological, but also psychological and sociocultural aspects, which should all be taken into account when considering what is appropriate in terms of ICU admission and management. As for all patients, but perhaps particularly in this subgroup, decisions regarding ICU admission and treatment and the withdrawing and withholding of life support must be individualized.

Background: The Patient Right to Autonomy Act (PRAA), implemented in Taiwan in 2019, enables the creation of advance decisions (AD) through advance care planning (ACP). This legal framework allows for the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (LST) or artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) in situations like irreversible coma, vegetative state, severe dementia, or unbearable pain. This study aims to investigate preferences for LST or ANH across various clinical conditions, variations in participant preferences, and factors influencing these preferences among urban residents., Methods: Employing a survey of legally structured AD documents and convenience sampling for data collection, individuals were enlisted from Taipei City Hospital, serving as the primary trial and demonstration facility for ACP in Taiwan since the commencement of the PRAA in its inaugural year. The study examined ADs and ACP consultation records, documenting gender, age, welfare entitlement, disease conditions, family caregiving experience, location of ACP consultation, participation of second-degree relatives, and the intention to participate in ACP., Results: Data from 2337 participants were extracted from electronic records. There was high consistency in the willingness to refuse LST and ANH, with significant differences noted between terminal diseases and extremely severe dementia. Additionally, ANH was widely accepted as a time-limited treatment, and there was a prevalent trend of authorizing a health care agent (HCA) to make decisions on behalf of participants. Gender differences were observed, with females more inclined to decline LST and ANH, while males tended towards accepting full or time-limited treatment. Age also played a role, with younger participants more open to treatment and authorizing HCA, and older participants more prone to refusal., Conclusion: Diverse preferences in LST and ANH were shaped by the public's current understanding of different clinical states, gender, age, and cultural factors. Our study reveals nuanced end-of-life preferences, evolving ADs, and socio-demographic influences. Further research could explore evolving preferences over time and healthcare professionals' perspectives on LST and ANH decisions for neurological patients.., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Ethical questions surrounding withdrawal of life support can be complex. When life support therapies are the result of a suicide attempt, the potential ethical issues take on another dimension. Duties and principles that normally guide clinicians' actions as caregivers may not apply as easily. We present a case of attempted suicide in which decisions surrounding withdrawal of life support provoked conflict between a patient's family and the medical team caring for him. We highlight the major unresolved philosophical questions and contradictory normative values about suicide that underlie this conflict. Finally, we show how these considerations were practically applied to this particular case.

Most medical learned societies have endorsed both "equivalence" between all forms of withholding or withdrawing treatment and the "discontinuity" between euthanasia and practices to withhold or withdraw treatment. While the latter are morally acceptable insofar as they consist in letting the patient die, the former constitutes an illegitimate act of actively interfering with a patient's life. The moral distinction between killing and letting die has been hotly debated both conceptually and empirically, most notably by experimental philosophers, with inconclusive results. This article employs a "revisionary" intuititionist perspective to discuss the results of a clinical ethics study about intensivists' perceptions of withhold or withdraw decisions. The results show that practitioners' moral experience is at odds with both the discontinuity and equivalence theses. This outcome allows us to revisit certain concepts, such as intention and causal relationship, that are prominent in the conceptual debate. Intensivists also regard end-of-life decisions as being on a scale from least to most active, and whether they regard active forms of end-of-life decisions as ethically acceptable depends on the overarching professional values they endorse: the patient's best chances of survival, or the patient's quality of life.

The use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) has been on the rise. Patients using ICDs inevitably transit towards the end of life at some point, including some who develop terminal illnesses. In this context, it is relevant to discuss and evaluate the deactivation of these devices with the aim of addressing patients' comfort and avoiding shocks during the end-of-life phase. There are multiple communicational and operational barriers when considering ICDs deactivation. Firstly, many patients have not discussed this issue with their physicians despite international guidelines recommending such discussions before device installation. Secondly, there is a significant lack of knowledge among patients, family members, and even doctors about the benefits of ICDs, as well as the deactivation process and ethics considerations, which leads them to believe that immediate death will occur, considering it as euthanasia or assisted suicide. Finally, the management of hospice patients or end-of-life ICDs users is poorly standardized, with low rates of deactivation, resulting in shocks in the last minutes of life, which can cause marked distress to patients and families. It is necessary to address these barriers and discuss these issues with patients to inform and educate them about the functioning of their devices, with the ultimate goal of enabling informed and shared decision-making for patient well-being.

Most hospitalized patients die following a decision to forgo life-sustaining treatment and/or focus on comfort care. Since "Do not kill" is a general ethical norm, many healthcare professionals (HCPs) are uncertain or troubled by such decisions. We propose an ethical framework to help clinicians to understand better their own ethical perspectives about four end-of-life practices: lethal injections, the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, the withholding of life-sustaining therapies, and the injection of sedatives and/or analgesics for comfort care. This framework identifies three broad ethical perspectives that may permit HCPs to examine their own attitudes and intentions. According to moral perspective A (absolutist), it is never morally permissible to be causally involved in the occurrence of death. According to moral perspective B (agential), it may be morally permissible to be causally involved in the occurrence of death, if HCPs do not have the intention to terminate the patient's life and if, among other conditions, they ensure respect for the person. Three of the four end-of-life practices, but not lethal injection, may be morally permitted. According to moral perspective C (consequentialist), all four end-of-life practices may be morally permissible if, among other conditions, respect for persons is ensured, even if one intends to hasten the dying process. This structured ethical framework may help to mitigate moral distress among HCPs by helping them to understand better their own fundamental ethical perspectives, as well as those of their patients and colleagues., (Copyright © 2023 Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Comatose survivors of cardiac arrest may die following withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST) due to poor neurologic prognosis. Family members, acting as surrogate decision makers, are frequently asked to decide whether the patient should continue to receive ongoing life-sustaining therapy such as mechanical ventilation in this context of risk of death following removal. Sometimes, physicians and family members disagree about what is in the patient's best interest, and this conflict causes distress for both families and medical personnel.This article examines themes recorded in the medical records of 24 cardiac arrest patients at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) whose families chose to pursue continued life support despite physician recommendations for withdrawal. In documented conversations between patients' families and their providers, the most prominent themes included faith in miracles, the inappropriateness of "playing God," the value of more time with the patient, and differences in how providers and family members perceived the patient's status.

The current version of the Declaration of Helsinki states that 'the benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new intervention must be tested against those of the best current proven intervention(s) … '. This wording implies that it is acceptable for patients to be assigned to receive an unproven new intervention and to be denied a best current proven intervention. We assert that patients being invited to participate in controlled trials cannot, ethically, be expected to forego proven beneficial forms of care. Patients being treated in controlled trials should not knowingly be disadvantaged compared with similar patients being treated in usual clinical care, where they have access to beneficial care. In this article, we have tried to separate for discussion 'the withholding of effective care from trial participants', 'informed consent to treatment', 'blinding' and 'use of placebos'.

Purpose: Six forms relating to decisions on life-sustaining treatment (LST) for patients at the end-of-life (EOL) in hospital are required by the "Act on Decision of LST for Patients at the EOL." We investigated the preparation and creation status of these documents from the database of the National Agency for Management of LST., Materials and Methods: We analyzed the contents and details of each document necessary for decisions on LST, and the creation status of forms. We defined patients completing form 1 as "self-determined" of LST, and those whose family members had completed form 11/12 as "family decision" of LST. According to the determination subject, we compared the four items of LST on form 13 (the paper of implementation of LST) and the documentation time interval between forms., Results: The six forms require information about the patient, doctor, specialized doctor, family members, institution, decision for LST, and intention to use hospice services. Of 44,381 who had completed at least one document, 36,693 patients had form 13. Among them, 11,531, 10,976, and 12,551 people completed forms 1, 11, and 12, respectively. The documentation time interval from forms 1, 11, or 12 to form 13 was 8.6±13.6 days, 1.0±9.5 days, and 1.5±9.7 days, respectively., Conclusion: The self-determination rate of LST was 31% and the mean time interval from self-determination to implementation of LST was 8.6 days. The creation of these forms still takes place when the patients are close to death.

Purpose: The main purpose of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Act recently enacted in Korea is to respect the patient's self-determination. We aimed to investigate the current status and features of patient self-determination after implementation of the law., Materials and Methods: Between February 2018 and January 2019, 54,635 cancer deaths were identified from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database. We analyzed the characteristics of decedents who complied with the law process by self-determination compared with decedents with family determination and with decedents who did not comply with the law process., Results: In multivariable analysis, patients with self-determination were younger, were less likely to live in rural areas, were less likely to belong to the highest income quintile, were less likely to be treated in general hospitals, and were more likely to show a longer time from cancer diagnosis compared with patients with family determination. Compared with patients who did not comply with the law process, patients with self-determination were younger, lived in Seoul or capital area, were less likely to belong to the highest income quintile, were treated in general hospitals, were less likely to have genitourinary or hematologic malignancies, scored higher on the Charlson comorbidity index, and showed a longer time from cancer diagnosis. Patients with self-determination were more likely to use hospice and less likely to use intensive care units (ICUs) at the end-of-life (EOL)., Conclusion: Decedents with self-determination were more likely to be younger, reside in the Seoul or capital area, show a longer time from cancer diagnosis, and were less likely to belong to the highest income quintile. They utilized hospice more frequently, and received less ICU care at the EOL.

Purpose: The "Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End-of-Life" was enacted on February 3, 2016 and went into effect on February 4, 2018 in Korea. This study reviewed the first year of determination to life-sustaining treatment (LST) through data analysis of the National Agency for Management of Life-Sustaining Treatment., Materials and Methods: The National Agency for Management of LST provided data between February 4, 2018 and January 31, 2019 anonymously from 33,549 patients. According to the forms patients were defined as either elf-determinants or family-determinants., Results: The median age of the patient was 73 and the majority was male (59.9%). Cancer patients were 59% and self-determinants were 32.1%. Cancer patients had a higher rate of self-determinants than non-cancer (47.3% vs. 10.1%). Plan for hospice service was high in cancer patients among self-determinants (81.0% vs. 37.5%, p < 0.001). In comparison to family-determinants, self-determinants were younger (median age, 67 years vs. 75 years; p < 0.001) and had more cancer diagnosis (87.1% vs. 45.9%, p < 0.001). Decision of withholding or withdrawing of LSTs in cancer patients was higher than non-cancer patients in four items., Conclusion: Cancer patients had a higher rate in self-determination and withholding or withdrawing of LSTs than non-cancer patients. Continued revision of the law and education of the public will be able to promote withdrawing or withholding the futile LSTs in patients at end-of-life. Further study following the revision of the law should be evaluated to change of end-of-life care.

Purpose: In Korea, the "Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-sustaining Treatment for Patients at the End of Life" was enacted on February 4, 2018. This study was conducted to analyze the current state of life-sustaining treatment decisions based on National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) data after the law came into force., Materials and Methods: The data of 173,028 cancer deaths were extracted from NHIS qualification data between November 2015 and January 2019., Results: The number of cancer deaths complied with the law process was 14,438 of 54,635 cases (26.4%). The rate of patient self-determination was 49.0%. The patients complying with the law process have used a hospice center more frequently (28% vs. 14%). However, the rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission was similar between the patients who complied with and without the law process (ICU admission, 23% vs. 21%). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who had undergone mechanical ventilation and hemodialysis in the comparative analysis before and after the enforcement of the law and the analysis according to the compliance with the law. The patients who complied with the law process received cardiopulmonary resuscitation at a lower rate., Conclusion: The law has positive effects on the rate of life-sustaining treatment decision by patient's determination. However, there was no sufficient effect on the withholding or withdrawing of life-sustaining treatment, which could protect the patient from unnecessary or harmful interventions.

Background Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) implanted as destination therapy may receive suboptimal preparation for and care at the end of life, but there is limited understanding of the reasons for these shortcomings. Exploring perceptions of individuals (caregivers and clinicians) who are closely involved in the end-of-life experience with patients with destination therapy LVADs can help identify key opportunities for improving care. Methods and Results We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 7 bereaved caregivers of patients with destination therapy LVADs and 10 interdisciplinary LVAD clinicians. Interviews explored perceptions of preparing for end of life, communicating about end of life, and providing and receiving end-of-life care, and were analyzed using a 2-step team-based inductive approach to coding and analysis. Six themes pertaining to end-of-life experiences were derived: (1) timing end-of-life discussions in the setting of unpredictable illness trajectories, (2) prioritizing end-of-life preparation and decision-making, (3) communicating uncertainty while providing support and hope, (4) lack of consensus on responsibility for end-of-life discussions, (5) perception of the LVAD team as invincible, and (6) divergent perceptions of LVAD withdrawal. Conclusions This study revealed 6 unique aspects of end-of-life care for patients with destination therapy LVADs as reported by clinicians and caregivers. Themes coalesced around communication, team-based care, and challenges unique to patients with LVADs at end of life. Programmatic changes may address some aspects, including training clinicians in LVAD-specific communication skills. Other aspects, such as standardizing the role of the palliative care team and developing practical interventions that enable timely advance care planning during LVAD care, will require multifaceted interventions.

Objectives: To investigate how life-sustaining treatment (LST) decisions are made and identify problematic ethical concerns confronted by physicians and nurses in pediatric intensive care within Italy., Methods: An 88-question online survey was created, based on a previous qualitative study conducted by this team. The survey was designed to identify how LST decisions were managed; contrasting actual practices with what participants think practices should be. Replies from physicians and nurses were compared, to identify potential inter-professional ethical tensions. The study also identified participants' principal ethical concerns. Moreover, open-ended questions elicited qualitative perspectives on participants' views. The survey was pilot-tested and refined before initiation of the study., Results: 31 physicians and 65 nurses participated in the study. Participants were recruited from pediatric intensive care units across five Italian cities; i.e., Florence, Milan, Padua, Rome, Verona. Statistically significant differences were identified for (a) virtually all questions contrasting actual practices with what participants think practices should be and (b) 14 questions contrasting physician replies with those of nurses. Physicians and nurses identified the absence of legislative standards for LST withdrawal as a highly problematic ethical concern. Physicians also identified bearing responsibility for LST decisions as a major concern. Qualitative descriptions further demonstrated that these Italian pediatric intensive care clinicians encounter significantly distressing ethical problems in their practice., Conclusions: The results of this study highlight a need for the development of (a) strategies for improving team processes regarding LST decisions, so they can be better aligned with how clinicians think decisions should be made, and (b) Italian LST decision-making standards that can help ensure optimal ethical practices.

The advent of COVID-19 has been the occasion for a renewed interest in the principles governing triage when the number of critically ill patients exceeds the healthcare infrastructure's capacity in a given location. Some scholars advocate that it would be morally acceptable in a crisis to withdraw resources like life support and ICU beds from one patient in favor of another, if, in the judgment of medical personnel, the other patient has a significantly better prognosis. The paper examines the arguments for and against this approach from the point of view of natural law theory, especially using the principle of double effect. We conclude that it is inadmissible to withdraw life-saving medical interventions from patients who are still benefiting from them, on the sole grounds that other patients might benefit more. Those who are currently using such technology should only interrupt their treatment if, in the judgment of medical personnel and, if possible, taking into account the wishes and needs of the patient and his family, the treatment is deemed futile, burdensome, or disproportionate.

In March 2020, the rapid increase in severe COVID-19 cases overwhelmed the healthcare systems in several European countries. The capacities for artificial ventilation in intensive care units were too scarce to care for patients with acute respiratory disorder connected to the disease. Several professional associations published COVID-19 triage recommendations in an extremely short time: in 21 days between March 6 and March 27. In this article, we compare recommendations from five European countries, which combine medical and ethical reflections on this situation in some detail. Our aim is to provide a detailed overview on the ethical elements of the recommendations, the differences between them and their coherence. In more general terms we want to identify shortcomings in regard to a common European response to the current situation., (© 2020 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Many countries have adopted new triage recommendations for use in the event that intensive care beds become scarce during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to establishing the exact criteria regarding whether treatment for a newly arriving patient shows a sufficient likelihood of success, it is also necessary to ask whether patients already undergoing treatment whose prospects are low should be moved into palliative care if new patients with better prospects arrive. This question has led to divergent ethical guidelines. This paper explores the distinction between withholding and withdrawing medical treatment during times of scarcity. As a first central point, the paper argues that a revival of the ethical distinction between doing and allowing would have a revisionary impact on cases of voluntary treatment withdrawal. A second systematic focus lies in the concern that withdrawal due to scarcity might be considered a physical transgression and therefore more problematic than not treating someone in the first place. In light of the persistent disagreement, especially concerning the second issue, the paper concludes with two pragmatic proposals for how to handle the ethical uncertainty: (1) triage protocols should explicitly require that intensive care attempts are designed as time-limited trials based on specified treatment goals, and this intent should be documented very clearly at the beginning of each treatment; and (2) lower survival prospects can be accepted for treatments that have already begun, compared with the respective triage rules for the initial access of patients to intensive care., (© 2020 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Moral distress is a negative affective response to a situation in which one is compelled to act in a way that conflicts with one's values. Little is known about the workplace scenarios that elicit moral distress in nephrology fellows., Methods: We sent a moral distress survey to 148 nephrology fellowship directors with a request to forward it to their fellows. Using a 5-point (0-4) scale, fellows rated both the frequency (never to very frequently) and severity (not at all disturbing to very disturbing) of commonly encountered workplace scenarios. Ratings of ≥3 were used to define "frequent" and "moderate-to-severe" moral distress., Results: The survey was forwarded by 64 fellowship directors to 386 fellows, 142 of whom (37%) responded. Their mean age was 33 ± 3.6 years and 43% were female. The scenarios that most commonly elicited moderate to severe moral distress were initiating dialysis in situations that the fellow considered futile (77%), continuing dialysis in a hopelessly ill patient (81%) and carrying a high patient census (75%), and observing other providers giving overly optimistic descriptions of the benefits of dialysis (64%). Approximately 27% had considered quitting fellowship during training, including 9% at the time of survey completion., Conclusion: A substantial majority of nephrology trainees experienced moral distress of moderate to severe intensity, mainly related to the futile treatment of hopelessly ill patients. Efforts to reduce moral distress in trainees are required., (© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Whether COVID-19 patients in need of extended care in an intensive care unit qualify for 'emergency medical treatment' is answered by considering the Constitution, the meaning of emergency medical treatment, and whether such patients are in an incurable chronic condition. Considering ethical guidelines for the withholding and withdrawal of treatment may assist a court in determining whether a healthcare practitioner has acted with the degree of skill and care required of a reasonably competent practitioner in his or her branch of the profession.

Although one can argue that they do not represent a radical departure from existing practices, protocols for reverse triage certainly step beyond what is ordinarily done in medicine and healthcare. Nevertheless, there seems to be some degree of moral concern regarding the ethical legitimacy of practicing reverse triage in the context of a pandemic. Such concern can be taken as a reflection of the moral antipathy some exhibit towards current practices of withdrawing treatment-that is, when withdrawal of treatment is arguably in the best interests of patients-and a rejection of the purported normative insignificance of withholding and withdrawing. Given that the relevance of the psychological attitudes of some healthcare professionals to the moral assessment of withdrawing and withholding treatment continues to be debated, it would seem that some thought should be given to the introduction and implementation of reverse triage decisions in response to a pandemic. This brief paper will consider if provision should be made for healthcare professionals to conscientiously refuse to participate in reverse triage.

The bioethical inquiry about allocating fairly scarce health resources is not new, all countries around the world that were seriously afflicted by SARS-CoV-2 have issued triage guidelines in order to address the dilemmas raised by the pandemic. There is no question about the need to create bioethical guidelines, since its creation provides a degree of certainty that fair and ethical decisions are taken. This also prevents that decisions are made in solitary and maybe motivated by corrupted actions. In Mexico, the creation of this guideline was a proactive and preventive measure to what was unavoidable, the exponential contagion phase of the pandemical scenario caused by Covid-19. On April 30, 2020 the General Sanitary Council published the Bioethical Guide to Allocate Scarce Resources on Critical Care Medicine in Emergency Situation. This guide has at its core that principle of utmost importance in social justice which main thesis is: "All lives have the same value". The aim of this contribution is to provide the ethical and legal principles established in the aforementioned bioethi-cal guideline. In sum, a brief exploration of the ethical reasons that support a specific way to allocate scarce health resources is provided, as well as the foundations of the procedural part from a human rights-based approach., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflict of interests. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

This paper examines the Court of Protection decision in Briggs v Briggs . It considers whether the approach of the Court, which gave effective decisive weight to a patient's previously expressed wishes about whether he should be kept alive in a minimally conscious state, is a proper application of the 'best interests' test under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It assesses whether the Briggs approach is effectively applying a 'substituted judgement' test and considers the difficulties in ascertaining what a person's actual wishes are.

In 2017 and 2018, the English courts were asked to decide whether continued life-sustaining treatment was in the best interests of three infants: Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans and Isaiah Haastrup. Each infant had sustained catastrophic, irrecoverable brain damage. Dignity played an important role in the best interests assessments reached by the Family division of the High Court in each case. Multiple conceptions of dignity circulate, with potentially conflicting implications for infants such as Charlie, Alfie and Isaiah. The judgements do not explicate the conceptions of dignity upon which they rely. This article reconstructs the conceptions of dignity invoked in these judgements, finding that a broadly Kantian, agential conception dominates, under which human dignity requires the prospect of agency. This conception is situated within the broader body of thought on dignity, and the potentially adverse implications of applying the reconstructed conception in best interests assessments for infants with severely restricted consciousness are discussed., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The neonatologist was describing the dire situation, the complexity of the fetus's anomalies, and the options-comfort care, some resuscitation-and finished by saying, "We would not recommend ECMO …" "We would not recommend" is a curious phrase. There is something ambiguous, very nebulous about it, something passive, noncommittal, maybe even deflective. As a bioethics researcher, I wondered how this phrase is interpreted, how it influences parents' moral deliberation over their options., (© 2020 The Hastings Center.)

On April 12, 2020, a bioethics guide for allocating scarce hospital resources during the current Covid-19 pandemic was posted on the website of the Consejo de Salubridad General(CSG) of the Government of Mexico. The guide, entitled Guía bioética para asignación de recursos limitados de medicina crítica en situación de emergencia, was intended as a preliminary document, but the website posting did not describe it as a first step in the process. The publicity resulted in a wide array of comments and criticisms. That first version posted on the CSG website contained an age-based criterion for breaking a tie between two or more medically eligible patients who needed of a ventilator: younger patients would have prefer-ence over older ones. The final version of the guide eliminated that criterion and instead, relied on the leading public health principle, "save the most lives", without regard to personal characteristics other than the possibility of benefitting from the scarce medical resources., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflict of interests. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Background/aims: Implantable cardiac defibrillators reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death in selected patients. The value of an implantable cardiac defibrillator declines as the patient's disease progresses. Guidelines suggest that the appropriateness of maintaining implantable cardiac defibrillator therapy be regularly reviewed as part of monitoring of the patient's disease trajectory. It is recommended that implantable cardiac defibrillators are deactivated as patients approach the end of life. Patients with a better understanding of their current state of health and the role that the implantable cardiac defibrillator plays within it are more likely to make informed decisions about the timing of deactivation., Methods: A quality improvement project was undertaken on appropriate deactivation of implantable cardiac defibrillators within a large tertiary cardiac centre. This was driven by audit data showing inadequate patient communication and documentation around deactivation. Drivers for change included the introduction of electronic data records, clinical review of comorbid patients approaching elective battery change and an ongoing forum for patient and carer education. Measured outcomes included the number of deactivations performed, evidence of patient discussion and consent, and timing of deactivation of the implantable cardiac defibrillator., Results: There were increased numbers of timely device deactivations undertaken following the interventions with improved documented evidence of patient discussion and consent. The educational forum was received favourably., Conclusions: Focused multidisciplinary interventions can impact favourably on appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator deactivation and improve patient engagement.

One of the earliest controversies in the modern history of bioethics was known at the time as "the Hopkins Mongol case," involving an infant with Trisomy 21 and duodenal atresia whose parents declined to consent to surgery. Fluids and feeding were withheld, and the infant died of dehydration after 15 days. The child's short life had a profound impact on the author's career and that of several others and ultimately led to changes in the care of children and adults with disabilities and the way difficult end-of-life decisions are made in US hospitals today. It also contributed to the growth of the modern bioethics movement and scholarship focused on pediatric bioethics issues., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The author has indicated he has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Charlie Gard (August 4, 2016, to July 28, 2017) was an infant in the United Kingdom who was diagnosed with an encephalopathic form of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome caused by a mutation in the RRM2B gene. Charlie's parents raised £1.3 million (∼$1.6 million US) on a crowdfunding platform to travel to New York to pursue experimental nucleoside bypass treatment, which was being used to treat a myopathic form of mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome caused by mutations in a different gene (TK2). The case made international headlines about what was in Charlie's best interest. In the medical ethics community, it raised the question of whether best interest serves as a guidance principle (a principle that provides substantive directions as to how decisions are to be made), an intervention principle (a principle specifying the conditions under which third parties are to intervene), both guidance and intervention, or neither. I show that the United Kingdom uses best interest as both guidance and intervention, and the United States uses best interest for neither. This explains why the decision to withdraw the ventilator without attempting nucleoside bypass treatment was the correct decision in the United Kingdom and why the opposite conclusion would have been reached in the United States., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: The author has indicated she has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

The "Baby Doe" case of the early 1980s was marked by considerable controversy, primarily regarding the legal response of the federal government to the case at the time. In the decades that followed, the decision-making for children with trisomy 21, like Baby Doe, has been substantially reevaluated. The data, the assumptions about quality of life that were based on those data, and the ethical principles underpinning the decision-making in the Baby Doe case have all evolved significantly over time. The present strategies for decision-making for children with trisomy 13 and 18 appear to be following a similar pattern. The data, quality-of-life assumptions based on those data, and even the ethical principles underlying the decision-making for these children are currently being reexamined. Children with trisomy 13 and 18 are, in this regard, the next Baby Doe(s)., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The author has indicated she has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Key ethical challenges for healthcare workers arising from the COVID-19 pandemic are identified: isolation and social distancing, duty of care and fair access to treatment. The paper argues for a relational approach to ethics which includes solidarity, relational autonomy, duty, equity, trust and reciprocity as core values. The needs of the poor and socially disadvantaged are highlighted. Relational autonomy and solidarity are explored in relation to isolation and social distancing. Reciprocity is discussed with reference to healthcare workers' duty of care and its limits. Priority setting and access to treatment raise ethical issues of utility and equity. Difficult ethical dilemmas around triage, do not resuscitate decisions, and withholding and withdrawing treatment are discussed in the light of recently published guidelines. The paper concludes with the hope for a wider discussion of relational ethics and a glimpse of a future after the pandemic has subsided., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

In 2017, the court case over medical treatment of UK infant, Charlie Gard, reached global attention. In this article, I will analyze one of the more distinctive elements of the case. The UK courts concluded that treatment of Charlie Gard was not in his best interests and that it would be permissible to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. However, in addition, the court ruled that Charlie should not be transferred overseas for the treatment that his parents sought, even though specialists in Italy and the US were willing to provide that treatment. Is it ethical to prevent parents from pursuing life-prolonging treatment overseas for their children? If so, when is it ethical to do this? I will outline arguments in defense of obstructing transfer in some situations. I will argue, however, that this is only justified if there is good reason to think that the proposed treatment would cause harm., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The author has indicated he has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Although parents are typically the most appropriate decision-makers for their children, there are limits to this authority. Medical providers may be ethically obligated to seek state intervention against a parental decision if the parent places a child at significant and imminent risk of serious harm. When parents make medical decisions for their children, they assess both the projected benefits and risks of their choices for their family. These assessments are impacted by uncertainty, which is a common feature of neonatal intensive care. The relative presence or absence of uncertainty may impact perceptions of parental decisions and a medical provider's decision to seek state intervention to overrule parents. In this article, we propose a model integrating prognostic uncertainty into pediatric decision-making that may aid providers in such assessments. We will demonstrate how to apply this model to 3 neonatal cases and propose that the presence of greater uncertainty ought to permit parents greater latitude to incorporate family values into their decision-making even if these decisions are contradictory to the recommendations of the medical team., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

The alleviation of suffering has always been central to the care of the sick. Yet as medical technology has advanced and life-sustaining treatments multiplied, medicine's capacity to both prevent and create suffering has grown exponentially. In pediatric medicine, the ability to stave off death with life-sustaining treatments allows children to survive but also to suffer in ways that are diverse and unprecedented. However, although parents and pediatric clinicians broadly agree that all children can suffer, there is little published literature in which researchers analyze or clarify the concept of pediatric suffering. This gap is worrisome, especially in light of growing concerns that the label of suffering is used to justify end-of-life decision-making and mask quality-of-life determinations for pediatric patients with profound neurologic impairment. Moreover, the awareness that some children can experience suffering but cannot communicate whether and how they are suffering creates a problem. Does the determination of suffering in a nonverbal child lie in the judgement of clinicians or parents? In this article, I will address several important questions related to the suffering of children through an analysis of two prevalent conceptualizations of pediatric suffering and suggest a possible avenue forward for future scholarship., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The author has indicated he has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

In all of medicine, there is perhaps nothing so distressing as bearing witness to a patient's suffering, especially if that patient is a child. We want to do everything that we can to avoid or alleviate a child's suffering, yet what do clinicians, ethicists, lawyers, or family members mean when they use the term "suffering," and how should these claims of suffering factor into pediatric decision-making? This question of suffering and what to do about it has played a key role in several prominent pediatric cases over the past decade, including the cases of Charlie Gard, Alfie Evans, and Baby Joseph. These cases have become seminal cases precisely because there is no clear resolution, and the "suffering child" continues to challenge our moral ideals of what it means to live a good life. In this article, I explore the various ways in which the concept of suffering is used in these cases, and I offer new ways in which parents, providers, and all those who work with sick children can approach the suffering child., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The author has indicated she has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

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.

Prognosis after severe brain injury is highly uncertain, and decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment are often made prematurely. These decisions are often driven by a desire to avoid a situation where the patient becomes 'trapped' in a condition they would find unacceptable. However, this means that a proportion of patients who would have gone on to make a good recovery, are allowed to die. I propose a shift in practice towards the routine provision of aggressive care, even in cases where the probability of survival and acceptable recovery is thought to be low. In conjunction with this shift, I argue in favour of a presumption towards withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, including artificial nutrition and hydration, when it becomes clear that a patient will not recover to a level that would be acceptable to them. I then respond to three potential objections to this proposal., (© 2020 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)