When Life-Sustaining Treatment Is Withdrawn and the Patient Doesn’t Die
Palliative Care; Palliative Care; Ethics; prognostication; withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment
One of the most difficult decisions that doctors and parents must make is the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Doctors find it easier to withdraw treatments in situations where withdrawal will be rapidly fatal rather than in situations in which treatment withdrawal will lead to a prolonged dying process. Mechanical ventilation is usually such a treatment. Withdrawal of ventilation generally leads to the patient’s rapid demise. Doctors may tell parents that death will occur quickly after a ventilator is withdrawn. But what happens when the doctors are wrong and a patient survives without life support? What should doctors do next? We present a case in which that happened and asked 3 experts to comment on the case. Stefan Kutzsche is a senior consultant in neonatology at Oslo University Hospital Ulleval in Norway. John Colin Partridge is a neonatologist and professor of pediatrics at University of California, San Francisco. Steven R. Leuthner is a neonatologist and professor of pediatrics and bioethics at the Medical College of Wisconsin. They each recommend slightly different approaches to this dilemma.
2013-10
Kutzsche S; Partridge JC; Leuthner SR; Lantos JD
Pediatrics
2013
Article information provided for research and reference use only. PedPalASCNET does not hold any rights over the resource listed here. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
Journal Article
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-0413" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">10.1542/peds.2013-0413</a>
Barriers to palliative care for children: Perceptions of pediatric health care providers
Longitudinal Studies
OBJECTIVE. The goal was to explore barriers to palliative care experienced by pediatric health care providers caring for seriously ill children. METHODS. This study explored pediatric provider perceptions of end-of-life care in an academic children's hospital, with the goal of describing perceived barriers to end-of-life care for children and their families. The report focuses on the responses of nurses (n = 117) and physicians (n = 81). RESULTS. Approximately one half of the respondents reported 4 of 26 barriers listed in the study questionnaire as frequently or almost always occurring, that is, uncertain prognosis (55%), family not ready to acknowledge incurable condition (51%), language barriers (47%), and time constraints (47%). Approximately one third of respondents cited another 8 barriers frequently arising from problems with communication and from insufficient education in pain and palliative care. Fourteen barriers were perceived by >75% of staff members as occasionally or never interfering with pediatric end-of-life care. Comparisons between physicians and nurses and between ICU and non-ICU staff members revealed several significant differences between these groups. CONCLUSIONS. Perceived barriers to pediatric end-of-life care differed from those impeding adult end-of-life care. The most-commonly perceived factors that interfered with optimal pediatric end-of-life care involved uncertainties in prognosis and discrepancies in treatment goals between staff members and family members, followed by barriers to communication. Improved staff education in communication skills and palliative care for children may help overcome some of these obstacles, but pediatric providers must realize that uncertainty may be unavoidable and inherent in the care of seriously ill children. An uncertain prognosis should be a signal to initiate, rather than to delay, palliative care.
2008
Davies B; Sehring SA; Partridge JC; Cooper BA; Hughes A; Philp JC; Amidi-Nouri A; Kramer RF
Pediatrics
2008
Article information provided for research and reference use only. PedPalASCNET does not hold any rights over the resource listed here. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
Journal Article
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-3153" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">10.1542/peds.2006-3153</a>
Death in the intensive care nursery: physician practice of withdrawing and withholding life support
Humans; infant; Intensive Care Units; Medical Futility; Euthanasia; Life Support Care; quality of life; Pediatric; Empirical Approach; Death and Euthanasia; decision making; Newborn; ICU Decision Making; Very Low Birth Weight; Passive; San Francisco; Life Support Systems; University of California
OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of selective nontreatment of extremely premature, critically ill, or malformed infants among all infant deaths in a level III intensive care nursery (ICN) and to determine the reasons documented by neonatologists for their decisions to withdraw or withhold life support. METHODS: This was a descriptive study based on review of the medical records of all 165 infants who died at a university-based level III ICN during 3 years. We determined whether each death had occurred despite the use of all available technologies to keep the infant alive or whether these were withheld or withdrawn, thereby leading to the infant's death. We also determined whether neonatologists documented either "futility" or "quality of life" as a reason to limit medical interventions. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-five infants died among the 1609 infants admitted during the study period. One hundred eight infant deaths followed the withdrawal of life support, 13 deaths followed the withholding of treatment, and 44 deaths occurred while infants continued to receive maximal life-sustaining treatment. For 90 (74%) of the 121 deaths attributable to withholding of withdrawal of treatment, physicians cited that death was imminent and treatment was futile. Quality-of-life concerns were cited by the neonatologists as reasons to limit treatment in 62 (51%). Quality of life was the only reason cited for limiting treatment for 28 (23%) of the 121 deaths attributable to withholding or withdrawal of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of deaths in the ICN occurred as a result of selective nontreatment by neonatologists, with few infants receiving maximal support until the actual time of death. Neonatologists often documented that quality-of-life concerns were considered in decisions to limit treatment; however, the majority of these decisions were based on their belief that treatment was futile. Prospective studies are needed to elucidate the determinants of neonatologists' practice decisions of selective nontreatment for marginally viable or damaged infants.
1997
Wall SN; Partridge JC
Pediatrics
1997
Article information provided for research and reference use only. PedPalASCNET does not hold any rights over the resource listed here. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
Journal Article
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-199706000-00009" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">10.1097/00006254-199706000-00009</a>