Display options
Cite
Welie JV, Ten Have HA. The ethics of forgoing life-sustaining treatment: theoretical considerations and clinical decision making. Multidiscip Respir Med. 2014;9(1):14doi: 10.1186/2049-6958-9-14.
Welie, J. V., & Ten Have, H. A. (2014). The ethics of forgoing life-sustaining treatment: theoretical considerations and clinical decision making. Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine, 9(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-6958-9-14
Welie, Jos Vm, and Ten Have, Henk Amj. "The ethics of forgoing life-sustaining treatment: theoretical considerations and clinical decision making." Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine vol. 9,1 (2014): 14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-6958-9-14
Welie JV, Ten Have HA. The ethics of forgoing life-sustaining treatment: theoretical considerations and clinical decision making. Multidiscip Respir Med. 2014 Mar 11;9(1):14. doi: 10.1186/2049-6958-9-14. PMID: 24618004; PMCID: PMC3995268.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Multidiscip Respir Med. 2014 Mar 11;9(1):14. doi: 10.1186/2049-6958-9-14.

The ethics of forgoing life-sustaining treatment: theoretical considerations and clinical decision making.

Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine

Jos Vm Welie, Henk Amj Ten Have

Affiliations

  1. Center for Health Policy and Ethics, Creighton University, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha NE 68178, USA. [email protected].

PMID: 24618004 PMCID: PMC3995268 DOI: 10.1186/2049-6958-9-14

Abstract

Withholding or withdrawing a life-sustaining treatment tends to be very challenging for health care providers, patients, and their family members alike. When a patient's life seems to be nearing its end, it is generally felt that the morally best approach is to try a new intervention, continue all treatments, attempt an experimental course of action, in short, do something. In contrast to this common practice, the authors argue that in most instances, the morally safer route is actually to forgo life-sustaining treatments, particularly when their likelihood to effectuate a truly beneficial outcome has become small relative to the odds of harming the patient. The ethical analysis proceeds in three stages. First, the difference between neglectful omission and passive acquiescence is explained. Next, the two necessary conditions for any medical treatment, i.e., that it is medically indicated and that consent is obtained, are applied to life-sustaining interventions. Finally, the difference between withholding and withdrawing a life-sustaining treatment is discussed. In the second part of the paper the authors show how these theoretical-ethical considerations can guide clinical-ethical decision making. A case vignette is presented about a patient who cannot be weaned off the ventilator post-surgery. The ethical analysis of this case proceeds through three stages. First, it is shown that and why withdrawal of the ventilator in this case does not equate assistance in suicide or euthanasia. Next, the question is raised whether continued ventilation can be justified medically, or has become futile. Finally, the need for the health care team to obtain consent for the continuation of the ventilation is discussed.

References

  1. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2001 Sep;36(9):566-72 - PubMed
  2. Am Heart J. 2007 May;153(5):831-6 - PubMed
  3. Intensive Care Med. 2009 Mar;35(3):397-404 - PubMed

Publication Types