Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-pkt8n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T18:31:44.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bioethical aspects of end-of-life care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2008

N. Zamperetti ,
R. Bellomo  and
C. Ronco
N. Zamperetti*
Affiliation:
San Bortolo Hospital, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Vicenza, Italy
R. Bellomo
Affiliation:
Austin & Repatriation Medical Center, Department of Intensive Care, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
C. Ronco
Affiliation:
San Bortolo Hospital, Department of Nephrology, Vicenza, Italy
*
Correspondance to: Nereo Zamperetti, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, San Bortolo Hospital, Via Rodolfi, 37, 36100 Vicenza, Italy. E-mail: nereo.zamperetti@ulssvicenza.it; Tel: +39 0444 993895 (secretary), +39 0444 993862 (ICU); Fax: +39 0444 993895/927567
Get access

Summary

Managing end-of-life care can be difficult because of the particular nature of intensive care support, which can separate the biological and the biographical aspects of life. Artificial organ support can temporarily delay death but, at the same time, may fail to restore a quality of life that the patient judges acceptable. For this reason, two concepts must be considered: that the mission of the healthcare system should be to care for patients according to their interests and wishes and that quality of care is related above all to the careful commitment of healthcare workers to the patient’s best interests. Keeping these concepts in mind, the rule of the five Cs (competence, collegiality, communication, continuity of care and compassion) might be helpful in the management of end-of-life care. Unfortunately, neither the rule of the five Cs nor the careful use of moral principles in order to promote the patients’ dignity can assure a universally acceptable decision. A reasonable level of ‘moral certainty’, however, might be achieved using a deliberative approach, which provides for the inclusion of all the different subjects involved in the decision-making process (patient, family, doctors, nurses and other carers), in order to reach the best possible decision in a specific situation.

Keywords

ETHICSMORAL OBLIGATIONSDECISION-MAKING
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 25 , Issue S42 , February 2008 , pp. 51 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © European Society of Anaesthesiology 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Ad hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death. A definition of irreversible coma: report of the Ad hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death. JAMA 1968; 205: 85–88.Google Scholar
2.Jennet, B, Plum, F. Persistent vegetative state after severe brain damage: a syndrome in search of a name. Lancet 1972; 1: 734–737.Google Scholar
3.Jorgensen, EO. Selective neurological recovery or dissociated cardiac death – to be or not to be – during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 1998; 36: 105–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences Staff. The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care 1999. Chicago: American Hospital Publishing, 1999.Google Scholar
5.Barnato, AE, McClellan, MB, Kagay, CR et al. . Trends in inpatient treatment intensity among Medicare beneficiaries at the end of life. Health Serv Res 2004; 39: 363–375.Google Scholar
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. Deaths by place of death, age, race, and sex: United States, 1999–2002. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/mortfinal2002_work309.pdf.Google Scholar
7.Angus, DC, Barnato, AE, Linde-Zwirble, WT et al. . Use of intensive care at the end of life in the United States: an epidemiologic study. Crit Care Med 2004; 32: 638–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.The SUPPORT Principal Investigators. A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. JAMA 1995; 274: 1591–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Puntillo, KA. Pain experiences of intensive care unit patients. Heart Lung 1990; 19: 526–533.Google Scholar
10.Bergbom-Engbert, I, Haljamae, H. Assessment of patients’ experience of discomforts during respiratory therapy. Crit Care Med 1989; 17: 1068–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Azoulay, E, Pochard, F, Chevret, S et al. . Meeting the needs of intensive care unit patient families: a multicenter study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163: 135–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Abbott, KA, Sago, JG, Breen, CM et al. . Families looking back: one year after discussion of withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining support. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 197–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Zamperetti, N, Bellomo, R, Dan, M, Ronco, C. Ethical, political, and social aspects of high-technology medicine: Eos and Care. Intensive Care Med 2006; 32: 830–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Norris, C, Jacobs, P, Rapoport, J et al. . ICU and non-ICU cost per day. Can J Anaesth 1995; 42: 192–196.Google Scholar
15.Luce, JM, Rubenfeld, GD. Can health care costs be reduced by limiting intensive care at the end of life? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 165: 750–754.Google Scholar
16.Halpern, NA, Bettes, L, Greenstein, R. Federal and nationwide intensive care units and healthcare costs: 1986–1992. Crit Care Med 1994; 22: 2001–2007.Google Scholar
17.Jacobs, P, Noseworthy, TW. National estimates of intensive care utilization and costs: Canada and the United States. Crit Care Med 1990; 18: 1282–1286.Google Scholar
18.Truog, RD. Will ethical requirement bring critical care research to a halt? Intensive Care Med 2005; 31: 338–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Annas, GJ. “Culture of life” politics at the bedside. The case of Terri Schiavo. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1710–1715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Annas, GJ. Nancy Cruzan and the right to die. N Engl J Med 1990; 323: 670–673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Truog, RD, Cochrane, TI. Refusal of hydration and nutrition: irrelevance of the “artificial” vs “natural” distinction. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 2574–2576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Sentenza 17.10.2003 della Corte di Appello di Milano, Sezione delle persone dei minori e della famiglia.Google Scholar
23.Zamperetti, N, Latronico, N. Nutrition and hydration of patients in vegetative state: a statement of the Italian National Committee for Bioethics. Intensive Care Med 2006; 32: 750–751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Cook, DJ, Guyatt, GH, Jaeschke, R et al. . Determinants in Canadian health care workers of the decision to withdraw life support from the critically ill. The Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. JAMA 1995; 273: 703–708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Ash, DA, Hansen-Flaschen, J, Lanken, P. Decision to limit or continue life-sustaining treatment by critical care physicians in the United States: conflicts between physicians’ practices and patients’ wishes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 151: 288–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Prendergast, TJ, Claessens, MT, Luce, JM. A national survey of end-of-life care for critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998; 158: 1163–1167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Sprung, CL, Eidelman, LA. Worldwide similarities and differences in the forgoing of life-sustaining treatments. Intensive Care Med 1996; 22: 1003–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Pochard, F, Azoulay, E, Chevret, S et al. . French intensivists do not apply American recommendations regarding decisions to forgo life-sustaining therapy. The French Protocetic Group. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 1887–1892.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Steinberg, A, Sprung, CL. The dying patient: new Israeli legislation. Intensive Care Med 2006; 32: 1234–1237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Vincent, JL. Cultural differences in end-of-life care. Crit Care Med 2001; 29(Suppl): N52–N55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Luce, JM, Lemaire, F. Two transatlantic viewpoints on an ethical quandary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 163: 818–821.Google Scholar
32.Pochard, F, Abroug, F. End-of-life decisions in ICU and cultural specificities. Intensive Care Med 2005; 31: 506–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Bloche, MG. Managing conflict at the end of life. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 2371–2373.Google Scholar
34.Ross, WD. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930: 42.Google Scholar
35.Gracia, D. Moral deliberation: the role of methodologies in clinical ethics. Med Health Care Philos 2001; 4: 223–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Gracia, D. Ethical case deliberation and decision making. Med Health Care Philos 2003; 6: 227–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Steinkamp, N, Gordijn, B. Ethical case deliberation on the ward. A comparison of four methods. Med Health Care Philos 2003; 6: 235–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Turner, L. Bioethics in pluralistic societies. Med Health Care Philos 2004; 7: 201–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed