BACKGROUND: Withdrawal of life-sustaining measures is a common event in the intensive care unit yet it involves a complex balance of medical, legal and ethical considerations. Very few healthcare providers have been specifically trained to withdraw life-sustaining measures, and no comprehensive guidelines exist to help ensure clinicians deliver the highest quality of care to patients and families. Hence, we sought to develop guidelines for the process of withdrawing life-sustaining measures in the clinical setting.
METHODS: We convened an interdisciplinary group of ICU care providers from the Canadian Critical Care Society and the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses, and used a modified Delphi process to answer key clinical and ethical questions identified in the literature.
RESULTS: A total of 39 experienced clinicians completed the initial workshop, and 36 were involved in the subsequent Delphi rounds. The group developed a series of guidelines to address (1) preparing for withdrawal of life-sustaining measures; (2) assessment of distress; (3) pharmaceutical management of distress; and (4) discontinuation of life-sustaining measures and monitoring. The group achieved consensus on all aspects of the guidelines after the third Delphi round.
CONCLUSIONS: We present these guidelines to help physicians provide high-quality end of life (EOL) care in the ICU. Future studies should address their effectiveness from both critical care team and family perspectives.

In this article we will be arguing in favour of legislating to protect doctors who bring about the deaths of PVS patients, regardless of whether the death is through passive means (e.g. the discontinuation of artificial feeding and respiration) or active means (e.g. through the administration of pharmaceuticals known to hasten death in end-of-life care). We will first discuss the ethical dilemmas doctors and lawmakers faced in the more famous PVS cases arising in the US and UK, before exploring what the law should be regarding such patients, particularly in Australia. We will continue by arguing in favour of allowing euthanasia in the interests of PVS patients, their families, and finally the wider community, before concluding with some suggestions for how these ethical arguments could be transformed into a set of guidelines for medical practice in this area.

Bioethics is a relatively new way of thinking about relationships in medical practice. It enables reflection on ethical conflicts, and opens up management options without dictating rules. Despite this historical context, medical ethics has been sidelined in the course of the development of bioethics. Bioethical reflection does not automatically result in changes to conflict resolution in daily doctor-patient relationships. However, these reflections are important because they promote the search for a \"moral consensus\" that establishes new ethical rules for day-to-day medical practice. We suggest that there is no conflict between bioethics and medical ethics; rather, these areas interact to establish new standards of behaviour among physicians. The legalisation of orthothanasia in Brazil is one example of how this theory of moral consensus might operate. On the other hand, the legal battle on abortion illustrates how the law cannot change without such a moral consensus.

The main premise of the Royal Dutch Medical Association\'s (RDMA) guideline on palliative sedation is that palliative sedation, contrary to euthanasia, is normal medical practice. Although we do not deny the ethical distinctions between euthanasia and palliative sedation, we will critically analyse the guideline\'s argumentation strategy with which euthanasia is demarcated from palliative sedation. First, we will analyse the guideline\'s main premise, which entails that palliative sedation is normal medical treatment. After this, we will critically discuss three crucial propositions of the guideline that are used to support this premise: (1) the patient\'s life expectancy should not exceed 2 weeks; (2) the aim of the physician should be to relieve suffering and (3) expert consultation is optional. We will conclude that, if inherent problematic aspects of palliative sedation are taken seriously, palliative sedation is less normal than it is now depicted in the guideline.

暂无摘要。

Recently in this journal John Keown attacked the BMA Guidance published on \'Withholding and Withdrawing Life-prolonging Medical Treatment\', arguing that it was fundamentally at odds with the sanctity of life doctrine as properly understood, condemning the intentional termination of individuals\' lives. In riposte it is asserted that even this modified version of the doctrine cannot support a defensible moral or legal standard for decision-making here, being founded upon an excessive emphasis on the mental state of the clinician and an inappropriately narrow focus on the effects of the proposed treatment on the \'health\' of the patient, as opposed to being primarily driven by the (best) interests of the patient. The attempt to divorce treatment decisions from broader evaluations of the net benefit or otherwise able to be attained by the patient from such treatment, including the taking into account of the individual\'s handicapped state, accordingly fails. Acceptance of such reality is, at the least, the first step toward a common language for further dialogue even between those with polar opposite opinions in this sphere.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the conference was to provide clinical practice guidance in end-of-life care in the ICU via answers to previously identified questions relating to variability in practice, inadequate predictive models for death, elusive knowledge of patient preferences, poor communication between staff and surrogates, insufficient or absent training of healthcare providers, the use of imprecise and insensitive terminology and incomplete documentation in the medical record.
METHODS: Presenters and jury were selected by the sponsoring organizations (American Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Société de Réanimation de Langue Française). Presenters were experts on the question they addressed. Jury members were general intensivists without special expertise in the areas considered. Experts presented in an open session to jurors and other healthcare professionals.
METHODS: Experts prepared review papers on their specific topics in advance of the conference for the jury\'s reference in developing the consensus statement.
METHODS: Jurors heard experts\' presentations over 2 days and asked questions of the experts during the open sessions. Jury deliberation with access to the review papers occurred for 2 days following the conference. A writing committee drafted the consensus statement for review by the entire jury. The 5 sponsoring organizations reviewed the document and suggested revisions to be incorporated into the final statement.
CONCLUSIONS: Strong recommendations for research to improve end-of-life care were made. The jury advocates a shared approach to end-of-life decision-making involving the caregiver team and patient surrogates. Respect for patient autonomy and the intention to honor decisions to decline unwanted treatments should be conveyed to the family. The process is one of negotiation, and the outcome will be determined by the personalities and beliefs of the participants. Ultimately, it is the attending physician\'s responsibility, as leader of the team, to decide on the reasonableness of the planned action. If a conflict cannot be resolved, an ethics consultation may be helpful. The patient must be assured of a pain-free death. The jury subscribes to the moral and legal principles that prohibit administering treatments specifically designed to hasten death. The patient must be given sufficient analgesia to alleviate pain and distress; if such analgesia hastens death, this \"double-effect\" should not detract from the primary aim to ensure comfort.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。