Critical care society guidelines recommend that ethics committees mediate intractable conflict over potentially inappropriate treatment, including Do Not Resuscitate status. There are, however, limited data on cases and circumstances in which ethics consultants recommend not offering cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite patient or surrogate requests and whether physicians follow these recommendations. This was a retrospective cohort of all adult patients at a large academic medical center for whom an ethics consult was requested for disagreement over DNR status. Patient demographic predictors of ethics (...) consult outcomes were analyzed. In 42 of the 116 cases, the patient or surrogate agreed to the clinician recommended DNR order following ethics consultation. In 72 of 74 of the remaining cases, ethics consultants recommended not offering CPR. Physicians went on to write a DNR order without patient/surrogate consent in 57 of those cases. There were no significant differences in age, race/ethnicity, country of origin, or functional status between patients where a DNR order was and was not placed without consent. Physicians were more likely to place a DNR order for patients believed to be imminently dying. The median time from DNR order to death was 4 days with a 90-day mortality of 88.2%. In this single-center cohort study, there was no evidence that patient demographic factors affected ethics consultants’ recommendation to withhold CPR despite patient/surrogate requests. Physicians were most likely to place a DNR order without consent for imminently dying patients. (shrink)

Few institutions have published reviews concerning the case consultation history of their ethics committees, and policies used by ethics committees to address inappropriate treatment are infrequently reviewed. We sought to characterize the operation of our institution’s ethics committee as a representative example of a volunteer ethics committee, and outline its use of a policy to address inappropriate treatment, the Conscientious Practice Policy. Patients were identified for retrospective review from the ethics consultation database. Patient demographics, medical admission information, and consultation information (...) were obtained from the medical record. Consultation notes were analyzed with directed content analysis. The use of the CPP was documented in each case. Groups of interest were compared via two-sample t-tests. There were 178 consultations between 2013 and 2018. The majority originated from medicine services. The most common consultation reasons were end-of-life balances of acute and palliative care, best interest standard, medical futility, and code status and intubation status. Average age was 65.5 years and average hospitalization before consultation was 51.4 days. 92 patients had a code status change that occurred after consultation. A policy to address inappropriate treatment was used in 42 of the consultations. Bivariate analysis demonstrated a reduction in policy use over time, with use in 32.1% of consultations from 2013 to 2016 and 11.4% of consultations 2017–2018, p = 0.002. End-of-life issues were the most common reason for consultation. Our consultation volume was lower than previously-published reports. A policy used to address inappropriate treatment was frequently used, although use decreased over time. (shrink)

The COVID-19 Pandemic a stress test for clinical medicine and medical ethics, with a confluence over questions of the proportionality of resuscitation. Drawing upon his experience as a clinical ethicist during the surge in New York City during the Spring of 2020, the author considers how attitudes regarding resuscitation have evolved since the inception of do-not-resuscitate orders decades ago. Sharing a personal narrative about a DNR quandry he encountered as a medical intern, the author considers the balance of patient rights (...) versus clinical discretion, warning about the risk of resurgent physician paternalism dressed up in the guise of a public health crisis. (shrink)

A good death is hard to find. Family members tell us that loved ones die in the wrong place—the hospital—and do not receive high-quality care at the end of life. This issue of the Hastings Center Report offers two articles from authors who strive to provide good end-of-life care and to prevent needless suffering. We agree with their goals, but we have substantial reservations about the approaches they recommend. Respect for the decisions of patients and their surrogates is a relatively (...) new and still vulnerable aspect of medical care. For thousands of years, patients and surrogates had no say in medical decision-making. Today, standards support shared decision-making, but these articles both carve out exceptions to those standards, limiting the rights of patients and families in decisions about specific end-of-life treatments. As bioethics consultants in an acute care setting, we frequently confront conflicts similar to those described by Jeffrey Berger and by Ellen Robinson and colleagues. In such cases, our service emphasizes redoubled efforts at communication and mediation. Focusing on goals and values, rather than interventions, produces the best possible collaboration in health care decision-making. Cases in which we would overturn a surrogate's recommendations regarding palliative sedation or do-not-resuscitate orders are rare and require careful processes and clear evidence that the surrogate's choice is contrary to patient values. (shrink)

Background: Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation is the default procedure during cardio-pulmonary arrest. If a patient does not want cardio-pulmonary resuscitation, then a do not attempt resuscitation order must be documented. Often, this order is not given; even if thought to be appropriate. This situation can lead to a slow code, defined as an ineffective resuscitation, where all resuscitation procedures are not performed or done slowly. Research objectives: To describe the perceptions of nurses working on internal medicine wards of slow codes, including the (...) factors associated with its implementation. Research design: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study. Participants completed a personal characteristics questionnaire and the Perceptions and Factors of Slow Codes questionnaire designed for this study. Participants and research context: The sample was a convenience sample of nurses working on internal medicine wards in two Israeli hospitals. Ethical considerations: The study received ethical approval from both institutions, where data were collected and stored according to institutional policy. Findings: Most reported that resuscitations were conducted according to protocol (n = 90, 76.2%). Some took their time calling the code (n = 22, 18.3%), or waited by the bedside and did not perform cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (n = 45, 37.5%). Factors most associated with slow codes were poor patient prognosis (mean = 3.52/5, standard deviation = 1.27) and a low chance of patient survival (mean = 3.37/5, standard deviation = 1.21). Two-thirds (n = 76, 66.8%) reported that slow codes were done on their unit and the majority (n = 80, 69%) perceived slow codes as ethical. Discussion: This study confirms that slow codes are part of medical care on internal medicine wards, where most nurses perceive them as an ethical alternative. These perceptions are in contrast to most legal and ethical opinions expressed in the literature. Conclusion: Nurses should be educated about the legal and ethical implications of slow codes, and qualitative and quantitative studies should be conducted that further investigate its implementation. (shrink)

The children were nestled all snug in their beds.While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads.Clement Moore's cherished ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas captures the hopes, dreams and visions...

In clinical ethics, there remains a great deal of uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of attempting cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for certain patients. Although the issue continues to receive ample attention and various frameworks have been proposed for navigating such cases, most discussions draw heavily on the notion of harm as a central consideration. In the following, I use emerging philosophical literature on the notion of harm to argue that the ambiguities and disagreement about harm create important and oft-overlooked challenges for the (...) ethics of CPR. I begin by elucidating the standard account of harm, called the Counterfactual Comparative Account (CCA). I then show that three challenges to the CCA—preemptive harms, the harm of death, and non-experiential harms—are particularly salient when assessing potential harms for candidates of CPR and likely impact-related decision-making and communication. I extend this argument to explore how the ambiguities of harm might extend to other realms of clinical decision-making, such as the use and limitations of life-sustaining treatments. To address these challenges, I propose two strategies for identifying and minimizing the impact of such uncertainty: first, clinicians and ethicists ought to promote pluralistic conversations that account for different understandings of harm; second, they ought to invoke harm-independent considerations when discussing the ethics of CPR in order to reflect the nuances of such conversations. These strategies, coupled with a richer philosophical understanding of harm, promise to help clinicians and ethicists navigate the prevalent and difficult cases involving patient resuscitation and many other harm-based decisions in the clinical setting. (shrink)

Although shared decision-making is a standard in medical care, unilateral decisions through process-based conflict resolution policies have been defended in certain cases. In patients who do not stand to receive proportional clinical benefits, the harms involved in interventions such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation seem to run contrary to the principle of non-maleficence, and provision of such interventions may cause clinicians significant moral distress. However, because the application of these policies involves taking choices out of the domain of shared decision-making, they face (...) important ethical and legal problems, including a recent challenge to their constitutionality. In light of these concerns, we suggest a re-conceptualization of informed non-dissent as an alternative approach in cases where the application of process-based policies is being considered. This clinician-directed communication model still preserves what is valuable in such policies and salvages professional integrity, while minimising ethical and legal challenges. (shrink)

When a patient lacks decision-making capacity and has not left a clear advance directive, there is now widespread agreement that patient-designated and next-of-kin surrogates should implement substituted judgment within a process of shared decision-making. Specifically, after discussing the “best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values, goals, and preferences” with the patient's clinicians, the patient-designated or next-of-kin surrogate should attempt to determine what decision the patient would have made in the circumstances. To the extent that this approach works, (...) it seems to provide about as much respect for the autonomy of incapacitated patients as we could ask for. But, as articles in this issue of the Report by Jeffrey Berger and by Ellen Robinson and colleagues emphasize, reality presents challenges. (shrink)

The opinion of Mr. Justice Francis of the English High Court which denied the parents of Charlie Gard, who had been born with an extremely rare mutation of a genetic disease, the right to take their child to the United States for a proposed experimental treatment occasioned world wide attention including that of the Pope, President Trump, and the US Congress. The case raise anew a debate as old as the foundation of Western medicine on who should decide and on (...) what standard when there is a conflict between a family and the treating physicians over a possible treatment. This paper will explore the different approaches of the British and American courts on the issue and the various proposals from that of John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice to a processed-based approach for resolving such disputes. As carefully crafted as the opinion of Mr Justice Nicholas Francis in the Gard case proved to be, it left commentators unsatisfied. A widespread criticism, captured in an article by Michael Dougherty in The National Review was for the state to ‘get out of the way of the parents trying to act in the best interests of the child’.1 Although he conceded the parents could be adding to the suffering of the child by taking Charlie to America for an experimental therapy and agreed that such a choice ‘may be the wrong decision,’ in Dougherty’s view, it should still be ‘their decision’. Dougherty’s stand was the popular response to the question of ‘Who should decide?’ It fails, however, to propose any rationale for the decision. It provided no norms, no standards and no guidelines for the parents. Their motive could equally well be indifference to the suffering of the child as concern for his well-being. Furthermore, even good, loving parents may make …. (shrink)

Systematic study of the intersection of ethics consultation services and solid organ transplants and recipients can identify and illustrate ethical issues that arise in the clinical care of these patients, including challenges beyond resource allocation. This was a single-centre, retrospective cohort study of all adult ethics consultations between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2017, at a large academic medical centre in the north-eastern United States. Of the 880 ethics consultations, sixty (6.8 per cent ) involved solid organ transplant, thirty-nine (...) (65.0 per cent) for candidates and twenty-one (35.0 per cent ) for recipients. Ethics consultations were requested for 4.3 per cent of heart, 4.9 per cent of lung, 0.3 per cent of liver, and 0.3 per cent of kidney transplant recipients over the study period. Nurses were more likely to request ethics consultations for recipients than physicians (80.0 per cent vs 20.0 per cent, p = 0.006). The most common reason for consultation among transplant candidates was discussion about intensity of treatment or goals of care after the patient was not or was no longer a transplant candidate. The most common reason for ethics consultation among transplant recipients was disagreement between transplant providers and patients/families/non-transplant healthcare professionals over the appropriate intensity of treatment for recipients. Very few consultations involved questions about appropriate resource allocation. Ethics consultants involved in these cases most often navigated communication challenges between transplant and non-transplant healthcare professionals and patients and families. (shrink)

Two articles in this issue of the Hastings Center Report explore two sides of the same problematic coin. In “The Limits of Surrogates’ Moral Authority and Physician Professionalism,” Jeffrey Berger discusses the moral problem of a surrogate refusing a treatment, palliative sedation, on behalf of a patient whose suffering is refractory to intensive palliative efforts provided by a multidisciplinary team. In “After the DNR: Surrogates Who Persist in Requesting Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation,” Ellen Robinson and her colleagues analyze data from a study (...) of cases in which physicians wished not to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation on patients whom they thought it would harm. Both articles begin from the idea of a professional determination about a physician's duty to a patient that conflicted with a surrogate's determination about what should or should not be done for that patient. Berger's argument stops just short of a solution, however, because a physician's professional obligation to help patients, even within guidelines set by other professionals, is insufficient protection for patients. But if Berger's theory is right—that sometimes surrogates lack moral authority to make decisions on behalf of patients—then the Robinson team has developed a careful and public process for attending to that conflict. (shrink)

Childress et al. (2023) have provided a cogent overview of the ethical considerations involved in withdrawing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) over a capacitated patient’s objection. Alth...

Two papers in this issue address the limits of surrogates’ authority when making life-and-death decisions for dying family members or friends. Using palliative sedation as an example, Jeffrey Berger offers a conceptual argument for bounding surrogate authority. Since freedom from pain is an essential interest, when imminently dying, cognitively incapacitated patients are in duress and their symptoms are not manageable in any other way, clinicians should be free to offer palliative sedation without surrogate consent, although assent should be sought and (...) every effort made to work with surrogates as harmoniously as possible. Ellen Robinson and her colleagues report on the implementation of a policy at Massachusetts General Hospital that supports do-not-resuscitate orders when cardiopulmonary resuscitation is likely to be ineffective or harmful, even if surrogates disagree. The “Doing No Harm” policy at MGH allows for what MGH calls a “medically indicated DNR” and what in some other places is called “a unilateral DNR”—the writing of an order not to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation, regardless of surrogate disapproval. These kinds of DNR policies have emerged in some hospitals across the country and for much the same reason that Berger provides in his argument regarding palliative sedation. I support the reasoning and the policies in both the Berger and Robinson papers. However, as the authors would most likely agree, the problems they aim to remedy are not simply about the scope of surrogate and professional authority. They are also symptoms of inattention to professional obligations and system failures. (shrink)

The goal of this paper is to review and describe the characteristics and outcomes of ethics consultations on a gastrointestinal oncology service and to identify areas for systems improvement and staff education. This is a retrospective case series derived from a prospectively-maintained database of the ethics consultation service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The study analyzed all ethics consultations requested for patients on the gastrointestinal medical oncology service from September 2007 to January 2016. A total of 64 patients were (...) identified. The most common primary ethical issue was the DNR order, followed by medical futility. The most common contextual issues were dispute/conflict between staff and family, dispute/conflict intra-family, and cultural/ethnic/religious issues. The majority of ethical issues leading to consultation were resolved ; i.e., the patient, surrogate, and/or healthcare team followed the recommendation of the ethics consultant. 22% had a DNR order prior to the ethics consult and 69% had a DNR order after the consult. In this population of patients on a gastrointestinal oncology service, ethics consultations are most often called regarding patients with advanced cancers and the most common ethical conflicts arose between families and the health care team over goals of care at the end of life, specifically related to the DNR order and perceived futility of continued/escalation of treatment. Ethics consultations assisted with conflict resolution. Conflicts might be reduced with improved communication about prognosis and earlier end of life care planning. (shrink)