Ethics Archives - Critical Care Science (CCS)
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2019;31(3):386-392
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20190051
The improvement in cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality has reduced the mortality of individuals treated for cardiac arrest. However, survivors have a high risk of severe brain damage in cases of return of spontaneous circulation. Data suggest that cases of cardiac arrest in critically ill patients with non-shockable rhythms have only a 6% chance of returning of spontaneous circulation, and of these, only one-third recover their autonomy. Should we, therefore, opt for a procedure in which the chance of survival is minimal and the risk of hospital death or severe and definitive brain damage is approximately 70%? Is it worth discussing patient resuscitation in cases of cardiac arrest? Would this discussion bring any benefit to the patients and their family members? Advanced discussions on do-not-resuscitate are based on the ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy, as the wishes of family members and physicians often do not match those of patients. In addition to the issue of autonomy, advanced discussions can help the medical and care team anticipate future problems and, thus, better plan patient care. Our opinion is that discussions regarding the resuscitation of critically ill patients should be performed for all patients within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission to the intensive care unit.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2019;31(3):386-392
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20190051
The improvement in cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality has reduced the mortality of individuals treated for cardiac arrest. However, survivors have a high risk of severe brain damage in cases of return of spontaneous circulation. Data suggest that cases of cardiac arrest in critically ill patients with non-shockable rhythms have only a 6% chance of returning of spontaneous circulation, and of these, only one-third recover their autonomy. Should we, therefore, opt for a procedure in which the chance of survival is minimal and the risk of hospital death or severe and definitive brain damage is approximately 70%? Is it worth discussing patient resuscitation in cases of cardiac arrest? Would this discussion bring any benefit to the patients and their family members? Advanced discussions on do-not-resuscitate are based on the ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy, as the wishes of family members and physicians often do not match those of patients. In addition to the issue of autonomy, advanced discussions can help the medical and care team anticipate future problems and, thus, better plan patient care. Our opinion is that discussions regarding the resuscitation of critically ill patients should be performed for all patients within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission to the intensive care unit.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2011;23(4):448-454
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2011000400009
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess family member acceptance of orthotanasia as related to symptom management, patient preference and the influence of the medical team's communication on therapy. METHODS: This was a descriptive one-year study conducted at the adult intensive care unit of the Hospital do Servidor Público Estadual. A structured questionnaire based on the Quality of Dying and Death (QODD 22) instrument and prior informal interviews were used. RESULTS: Sixty family members were assessed; the mean age was 51.7 + 12.1 years, and 81.7% were female. The patients were hospitalized for a mean of 31 + 26.9 days, and 17.0% of these days were spent in the intensive care unit. Most of the patients had neurological conditions. Most of the patients (53.3%) had discussed their end-of-life care wishes with family members; however, 76.7% of them had not discussed this issue with their doctors (p < 0.00). The family members reported being favorable to orthotanasia in 83.3% of the cases. Most (85.0%) desired the medical team to clearly approach the subject, and 65.0% wished to take part in the quality of end-of-life decision making process. The family members were generally satisfied with information they received from the doctors: 93.3% believed they had received appropriately frequent communications about the clinical conditions; 81.7% were able to clarify their doubts regarding the patient's clinical status; the communication was understood by 83.3% of the respondents; and 80.0% believed that clear and honest information had been provided. Only 43.3% of the respondents wished to be present at the time of their loved ones' deaths. A significant association between family member acceptance of orthotanasia and participation in end-of-life decisions (p = 0.042) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the respondents were favorable to orthotanasia and wished to participate in end-of-life discussions.
Abstract
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2011;23(4):448-454
DOI 10.1590/S0103-507X2011000400009
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess family member acceptance of orthotanasia as related to symptom management, patient preference and the influence of the medical team's communication on therapy. METHODS: This was a descriptive one-year study conducted at the adult intensive care unit of the Hospital do Servidor Público Estadual. A structured questionnaire based on the Quality of Dying and Death (QODD 22) instrument and prior informal interviews were used. RESULTS: Sixty family members were assessed; the mean age was 51.7 + 12.1 years, and 81.7% were female. The patients were hospitalized for a mean of 31 + 26.9 days, and 17.0% of these days were spent in the intensive care unit. Most of the patients had neurological conditions. Most of the patients (53.3%) had discussed their end-of-life care wishes with family members; however, 76.7% of them had not discussed this issue with their doctors (p < 0.00). The family members reported being favorable to orthotanasia in 83.3% of the cases. Most (85.0%) desired the medical team to clearly approach the subject, and 65.0% wished to take part in the quality of end-of-life decision making process. The family members were generally satisfied with information they received from the doctors: 93.3% believed they had received appropriately frequent communications about the clinical conditions; 81.7% were able to clarify their doubts regarding the patient's clinical status; the communication was understood by 83.3% of the respondents; and 80.0% believed that clear and honest information had been provided. Only 43.3% of the respondents wished to be present at the time of their loved ones' deaths. A significant association between family member acceptance of orthotanasia and participation in end-of-life decisions (p = 0.042) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the respondents were favorable to orthotanasia and wished to participate in end-of-life discussions.
