Resuscitation decisions in the elderly: a discussion of current thinking.

Decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation may be based on medical prognosis, quality of life and patients' choices. Low survival rates indicate its overuse. Although the concept of medical futility has limitations, several strong predictors of non-survival have been identified and prognostic indices developed. Early results indicate that consideration of resuscitation in the elderly should be very selective, and support "opt-in" policies. In this minority of patients, quality of life is the principal issue. This is subjective and best assessed by the individual in question. Patients' attitudes cannot be predicted reliably and surrogate decision-making is inadequate. Lay knowledge is poor. However, patients can use prognostic information to make rational choices. The majority welcome discussion of resuscitation and prefer this to be initiated by their doctors; many wish to decide for themselves. There is little evidence that this causes distress. The views of such patients, if competent, should be sought actively.     

透析前患者教育在终末期肾脏疾病患者管理中的相关研究进展

终末期肾脏病(end-stage renal disease,ESRD)的患者人数在全世界呈持续升高趋势,无论是发达国家还是发展中国家都将要面对ESRD所带来的巨大经济负担,迫切需要各地区根据经济发展及资源的不同制定降低疾病负担的有效预防策略。透析前多学科团队合作的患者教育在ESRD中的作用也越来越受到重视,成为ESRD患者管理中的关键环节。患者教育是医患之间沟通的主要桥梁,有助于提高患者相关医学知识,帮助患者提高自我管理疾病能力。进入ESRD期的患者不可避免的要对肾脏替代治疗(renal replacement therapy,RRT)方式做出选择,而患者个人、教育提供者或社会支持系统等多方面原因会影响患者根据自身需要做出合理选择。众多研究表明合理规范的透析前患者教育可以提高患者自我管理能力,增加医学相关知识,延缓疾病进展,避免紧急透析,降低早期死亡率,以及更多地选择腹膜透析作为RRT方案,从而直接或间接地节约社会医疗成本。本综述旨在讨论透析前患者教育对于社会经济和患者个人2个方面的重要意义,影响教育活动进行的因素,患者教育的方式,充分利用移动网络、社区管理平台的便捷对患者进行随访与指导,同时总结其他慢性病管理中的经验,改进患者教育的模式,让患者获得充分的医学知识并主动参与医疗决策,建立以患者为中心的医疗管理模式。      

Limiting risks by curtailing rights: a response to Dr Ryan.

It has been argued that the inherent risks of advance directives made by healthy people are disproportionate to the potential benefits, particularly if the directive is implementable in cases of reversible mental incapacity. This paper maintains that the evidence for such a position is lacking. Furthermore, respect for the principle of autonomy requires that individuals be permitted to make risky choices about their own lives as long as these do not impinge on others. Even though health professionals have an obligation to try and ensure that patients have appropriate information about possible future treatment options, they cannot predict and describe every eventuality but nor can they disregard firm decisions knowingly made on the basis of incomplete information by competent adults. To attempt to do so would be to reinstate notions of medical paternalism which are contrary to current public expectations.     

Treating competent patients by force: the limits and lessons of Israel's Patient's Rights Act

Competent patients who refuse life saving medical treatment present a dilemma for healthcare professionals. On one hand, respect for autonomy and liberty demand that physicians respect a patient's decision to refuse treatment. However, it is often apparent that such patients are not fully competent. They may not adequately comprehend the benefits of medical care, be overly anxious about pain, or discount the value of their future state of health. Although most bioethicists are convinced that partial autonomy or marginal competence of this kind demands the same respect as full autonomy, Israeli legislators created a mechanism to allow ethics committees to override patients' informed refusal and treat them against their will. To do so, three conditions must be satisfied: physicians must make every effort to ensure the patient understands the risks of non-treatment, the treatment physicians propose must offer a realistic chance of significant improvement, and there are reasonable expectations that the patient will consent retroactively. Although not all of these conditions are equally cogent, they offer a way forward to assure care for certain classes of competent patients without abandoning the principle of autonomy altogether. These concerns reach past Israel and should engage healthcare professionals wary that respect for autonomy may sometimes cause avoidable harm.     

Existential autonomy: why patients should make their own choices.

Savulescu has recently introduced the "rational non-interventional paternalist" model of the patient-doctor relationship. This paper addresses objections to such a model from the perspective of an anaesthetist. Patients need to make their own decisions if they are to be fully autonomous. Rational non-interventional paternalism undermines the importance of patient choice and so threatens autonomy. Doctors should provide an evaluative judgment of the best medical course of action, but ought to restrict themselves to helping patients to make their own choices rather than making such choices for them.     

Rational non-interventional paternalism: why doctors ought to make judgments of what is best for their patients.

This paper argues that doctors ought to make all things considered value judgments about what is best for their patients. It illustrates some of the shortcomings of the model of doctor as 'fact-provider'. The 'fact-provider' model fails to take account of the fact that practising medicine necessarily involves making value judgments; that medical practice is a moral practice and requires that doctors reflect on what ought to be done, and that patients can make choices which fail to express their autonomy and which are based on mistaken judgments of value. If doctors are properly to respect patient autonomy and to function as moral agents, they must make evaluations of what their patients ought to do, all things considered. This paper argues for 'rational, non-interventional paternalism'. This is a practice in which doctors form conceptions of what is best for their patients and argue rationally with them. It differs from old-style paternalism in that it is not committed to doing what is best.     

Decisions at the end of life: an empirical study on the involvement, legal understanding and ethical views of preregistration house officers

OBJECTIVES: To collect information on the involvement, legal understanding and ethical views of preregistration house officers (PRHO) regarding end-of-life decision making in clinical practice. DESIGN: Structured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 104 PRHO who responded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Information on the frequency and quality of involvement of PRHO in end-of-life decision making, their legal understanding and ethical views on do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order and withdrawal of treatment. RESULTS: Most PRHO participated in team discussions on the withdrawal of treatment (n = 95, 91.3%) or a DNR order (n = 99, 95.2%). Of them, 46 (44.2%) participants had themselves discussed the DNR order with patients. In all, it was agreed by 84 (80.8%) respondents that it would be unethical to make a DNR order on any patient who is competent without consulting her or him. With one exception, it was indicated by the participants that patients who are competent may refuse tube feeding (n = 103, 99.0%) and 101 (97.1%) participants thought that patients may refuse intravenous nutrition. The withdrawal of artificial ventilation in incompetent patients with serious and permanent brain damage was considered to be morally appropriate by 95 (91.3%) and 97 (93.3%) thought so about the withdrawal of antibiotics. The withdrawal of intravenous hydration was considered by 67 (64.4%) to be morally appropriate in this case. CONCLUSIONS: PRHO are often involved with end-of-life decision making. The results on ethical and legal understanding about the limitations of treatment may be interpreted as a positive outcome of the extensive undergraduate teaching on this subject. Future empirical studies, by a qualitative method, may provide valuable information about the arguments underlying the ethical views of doctors on the limitations of different types of medical treatment.     

Bioethics for clinicians: 4. Voluntariness.

In the context of consent, "voluntariness" refers to a patient's right to make health care choices free of any undue influence. However, a patient's freedom to make choices can be compromised by internal factors such as pain and by external factors such as force, coercion and manipulation. In exceptional circumstances--for example, involuntary admission to hospital--patients may be denied their freedom of choice; in such circumstances the least restrictive means possible of managing the patient should always be preferred. Clinicians can minimize the impact of controlling factors on patients' decisions by promoting awareness of available choices, inviting questions and ensuring that decisions are based on an adequate, unbiased disclosure of the relevant information.     

The right to be allowed to die.

The unbridled use of modern medical skills and technology in preserving life at all costs has stimulated interest in expressing a 'right to die' by the legally competent patient who is anxious to protect his autonomy. Some recent decisions by American courts are seen to threaten this 'right to die' of competent patients and imply that legally incompetent patients including children should not have this right under any circumstances, even when expressed on their behalf by guardians, nearest relatives or parents. It is argued that this is contrary to 'natural justice' as viewed by most people. It should be possible to develop procedures which are protective of the basic 'right to life' of the incompetent yet will recognise circumstances where they could be allowed to die. This paper was presented at the 1983 annual conference of the London Medical Group, 'Human Rights in Medicine'.     

Competence and consent

To perform a medical procedure on a competent patient who is refusing it may constitute battery; but to fail to perform a medical procedure on an incompetent patient who is refusing it may constitute negligence. Competence involves being able to understand the consequences of receiving medical treatment, and not receiving it, and being able to make a decision on the basis of that understanding. Competent people can sometimes make imprudent or irrational decisions. Cognitive impairment and mental illness do not necessarily render a person incompetent to consent to investigation and treatment. The suspicion of cognitive impairment or mental illness should prompt a thorough evaluation of competence and mental state. Treatment of incompetent people should be dictated by their best interests, advance directives or substituted judgement.     

Unconventional cancer remedies.

Unproven and disproven remedies continue to abound for illnesses for which conventional treatment is only partially effective. This is particularly true with cancer, for which up to 50% of patients may be receiving unorthodox therapy. This article examines unconventional cancer remedies, their adverse effects, their common factors and the basis for their appeal, as well as what motivates and characterizes patients who choose these treatments. Also discussed is an approach that may be used by the conventional physician for patients who are likely to seek unorthodox treatment. This approach will help patients make the best decision about their treatment and protect them from the hazards of unconventional remedies.     

Truth telling, autonomy and the role of metaphor

This paper examines the potential role of metaphors in helping healthcare professionals to communicate honestly with patients and in helping patients gain a richer and more nuanced understanding of what is being explained. One of the ways in which doctors and nurses may intentionally, or unintentionally, avoid telling the truth to patients is either by using metaphors that obscure the truth or by failing to deploy appropriately powerful and revealing metaphors in their discussions. This failure to tell the truth may partly account for the observation by clinicians that patients sometimes make decisions that, from the perspective of their clinician, and given all that the clinician knows, seem unwise. For example, patients with advanced cancer may choose to undergo further, aggressive, treatment despite the fact that they are likely to accrue little or no benefit as a result. While acknowledging that the immediate task of telling patients the truth can be difficult for all those concerned, I argue that the long-term consequences of denying patients autonomy at the end of life can be harmful to patients and can leave doctors and nurses distressed and confused.     

自体带瓣静脉段移植治疗下肢深静脉瓣膜功能不全的研究

动物实验说明,利用保养液可使移植静脉段中内皮细胞保持完整的时间,较未作保养者延长3倍;移植后的内膜损伤可在4周内完全修复,并且其中瓣膜的功能始终保持健全;移植段与受植段间管径的差异不能小于1:3;瓣膜的启闭主要受血流动力学支配。临床应用20例,术后随访34～51个月,疗效良好者18例(90%),好转及无效各1例。     

Informed Consent

There have been significant changes in the doctor patient relationship with the impact of technology in day-to-day practice. More and more patients are aware of their rights and are keen to make free choice and decision on their treatment. This helps them to choose the treatment of their choice from the options available and to select a physician of their choice. Doctor's decisions are being questioned regarding their correctness and there is a need to educate the patient, on what one offers by way of treatment. In some procedures and types of treatment, patient needs to be educated and informed of the merits and demerits of the treatment available. This will help the patient to make appropriate choice and also to accept some adverse outcome of treatment. Towards this end, all countries are looking afresh at the necessity of Informed Consent. Methods adopted by some countries are highlighted to help our physicians practice them in an appropriate way. A lot of remedial work needs to be done to minimize future litigation, as many doctors misunderstand their legal obligations and haven't caught up with the change in judge's thinking.     

Applicability of the principle of respect for autonomy: the perspective of Turkey

Turkey has a complex character, which has differences from the Western world or Eastern Asia as well as common points. Even after more than a century of efforts to modernise and integrate with the West, Turkish society has values that are different from those of the West, as well as having Western values. It is worth questioning whether ordinary Turkish people show an individualistic character. The principle of respect for individual autonomy arises from a perception of oneself as an individual, and the person's situation may affect the applicability of the principle. Patients who perceive themselves to be members of a community rather than free persons and who prefer to participate in the common decisions of the community and to consider the common interest and the common value system of the community concerning problems of their life (except healthcare or biomedical research) rather than to decide as independent, rational individuals may not be competent to make an autonomous choice. Expectations that such patients will behave as autonomous individuals may be unjustified. The family, rather than the patient, may take a primary role in decisions. A flexible system considering cultural differences in the concept of autonomy may be more feasible than a system following strict universal norms.     

Assessing competence to refuse medical treatment.

Doctors have a duty to ensure that patients in their care who refuse medical treatment are competent to do so. Doctors who comply with an incompetent patient's refusal of treatment risk harm to the patient and are breaching their duty of care. On the other hand, doctors who treat a competent patient against the patient's will violate his or her autonomy and commit a battery. The test of competence is a legal one, with the courts being the final arbiters in cases of doubt. Assessment of competence involves a three-step process of determining whether the patient (a) can comprehend and retain relevant information, (b) believes the information, and (c) can weigh the information in the balance and arrive at a choice. Asking patients a few simple questions can help doctors assess their competence.     

Research ethics committees and paternalism

In this paper the authors argue that research ethics committees (RECs) should not be paternalistic by rejecting research that poses risk to people competent to decide for themselves. However it is important they help to ensure valid consent is sought from potential recruits and protect vulnerable people who cannot look after their own best interests. The authors first describe the tragic deaths of Jesse Gelsinger and Ellen Roche. They then discuss the following claims to support their case: (1) competent individuals are epistemologically and ethically in the best position to say which risks are reasonable for them, so RECs should be no more restrictive than the "normal" constraints on people taking risks with themselves; (2) RECs do not judge individual competence (that is for researchers and psychiatrists); (3) individual liberty is mostly limited by what serves the public interest, and RECs do not determine public interest; (4) RECs may have a paternalistic role in preventing exploitation of competent people vulnerable to the use of incentives, and in protecting the interests of incompetent people; however, (5) the moral and political authority of RECs has not been established in this respect.     

Addicted to the good life: harm reduction in chronic disease management

Individual values sometimes lead patients to make lifestyle choices that have negative effects on their health. Doctors tend to feel responsible for delivering best-practice health outcomes to such patients, but also feel inclined to respect their patients' values. The adoption of a harm reduction model may provide a strategy for delivering the best care that is compatible with each patient's chosen lifestyle.     

Ethical and legal issues at the interface of complementary and conventional medicine

Doctors should: Honestly answer patients' direct questions about CAM and elicit information about their use of it. Establish patients' understanding of the conventional and complementary therapies, both those available to them, and those that they may already be using. Establish why the patient uses CAM, and their goals for both complementary and conventional therapies. Reflect on whether information about CAM would be material for that patient at that time, taking into account the patient's burden of illness, his or her expressed preferences and the risks and benefits of both conventional and complementary therapy. Take steps to become adequately informed about available CAM that has consistently been shown to be safe and effective; has consistently been shown to be ineffective and/or harmful; or is consistently enquired about by patients. Become familiar with qualified and competent CAM practitioners (medical and non-medical) to whom referrals can be made when necessary. Continue a relationship with the patient, while continuing to monitor the patient conventionally and staying open to further discussions about CAM.     

Informed consent by children: the new reality.

Recent legislative changes in British Columbia and New Brunswick allow children to make their own decisions about health care, something that used to be the prerogative of their parents. In this article, Eike-Henner Kluge argues that the changes hold profound implications for physicians. He says they increase the responsibility placed on doctors, who must now consider whether a child is indeed competent, and whether the decision made by a competent child is indeed in the child's best interests.