Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T04:58:09.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 15 - Setting Ethically Justified Limits on Life-Sustaining Treatment

from Section 3 - Professionally Responsible Clinical Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2019

Laurence B. McCullough ,
John H. Coverdale  and
Frank A. Chervenak
Laurence B. McCullough
Affiliation:
Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell
John H. Coverdale
Affiliation:
Baylor College of Medicine, Texas
Frank A. Chervenak
Affiliation:
Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an ethical framework for setting justified limits on life-sustaining treatment.

Sometimes a patient’s condition has deteriorated to such a degree that in deliberative clinical judgment the prediction of imminent death becomes reliable. When death is imminent patients are transferred to a critical care unit in which they receive life-sustaining treatment. Life-sustaining treatment deploys a range of interventions, including physical intervention such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation; intravenous administration of drugs, fluids, and nutrition; and mechanical devices such as circulation devices, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, dialysis, and ventilators. These interventions are designed to support or replace organ functions in the absence of which the risk of mortality will rapidly approach 100%.

Type
Chapter
Information
Professional Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology , pp. 177 - 188
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

McCormick, RA. To save or let die: the dilemma of modern medicine. JAMA 1974; 229: 172–176.Google Scholar
Baker, RB, McCullough, LB. The Cambridge World History of Medical Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Hippocrates. The Art. In Reiser, SJ, Dyck, AJ, Curran, WJ, eds. Ethics in Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977: 6.Google Scholar
Gregory, J. Lectures on the Duties and Qualifications of a Physician. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1772. Reprinted in McCullough LB, ed. John Gregory’s Writings on Medical Ethics and the Philosophy of Medicine. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1998: 161–248.Google Scholar
Placencia, FX, McCullough, LB. The history of ethical decision making in neonatal intensive care. J Intensive Care Med 2011; 26: 368–384.Google Scholar
Placencia, FX, McCullough, LB. Biopsychosocial risks of parental care for high-risk neonates: implications for evidence-based parental counseling. J Perinatol 2012; 32: 381–386.Google Scholar
In re Quinlan. 70 N.J. 10; 355 A.2d 647 (1976).Google Scholar
Rabeneck, L, McCullough, LB, Wray, NP. Ethically justified, clinically comprehensive guidelines for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement. Lancet 1997; 349: 496–498.Google Scholar
Blackhall, L. Must we always use CPR? N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 1281–1285.Google Scholar
Kon, AA, Shepard, EK, Sederstrom, NO, Swoboda, SM, et al. Defining futile and potentially inappropriate interventions: a policy statement from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Ethics Committee. Crit Care Med 2016; 44: 1679–1774.Google Scholar
McCullough, LB, Jones, JW. Postoperative futility: a clinical algorithm for setting limits. Brit J Surg 2001; 88: 1153–1154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saigal, S, Tyson, J. Measurement of quality of life of survivors of neonatal intensive care: critique and implications. Semin Perinatol 2008; 32: 59–66.Google Scholar
Leplège, A, Hunt, S. The problem of quality of life in medicine. JAMA 1997; 278: 47–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Consensus statement of the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Ethics Committee regarding futile and other possibly inadvisable treatments. Crit Care Med 1997; 25: 887–891.Google Scholar
Verhagen, E, Sauer, PJJ. The Groningen Protocol: euthanasia in severely ill newborns. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 959–962.Google Scholar
Verhagen, AAE, Sol, JJ, Brouwer, OF, Sauer, PJ. Actieve levens-beendiging bij pasgeborenen in Nederland, Een analyse can alle meldingen van 1997–2004. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005; 149: 183–188.Google Scholar
Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB, Arabin, B. Why the Groningen Protocol should be rejected. Hastings Cent Rep 2006; 36: 30–33.Google Scholar
Kon, AA. Neonatal euthanasia is unsupportable: the Groningen Protocol should be abandoned. Theor Med Bioeth 2007; 28: 453–463.Google Scholar
Kodish, E. Paediatric ethics: a repudiation of the Groningen Protocol. Lancet 2008; 371: 892–893.Google Scholar
Braun, UK, McCullough, LB. Preventing pathways to life-sustaining treatment by default. Ann Fam Med 2011; 9: 250–256.Google Scholar
Lantos, JD. Ethical problems in decision making in the neonatal ICU. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 1851–1860.Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission, and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 1995; 95: 314–317.Google Scholar
Katz, AL, Webb, SA. Committee on Bioethics. American Academy of Pediatrics. Informed consent in decision-making in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 2016; 138: pii: e20161485.Google Scholar
Chervenak, FA, McCullough, LB. Justified limits on refusing intervention. Hastings Cent Rep 1991; 21: 12–18.Google Scholar
Brett, A, McCullough, LB. When patients request specific interventions: defining the limits of the physician’s obligations. N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 1347–1351.Google Scholar
Brett, AS, McCullough, LB. Addressing requests by patients for non-beneficial interventions. JAMA 2012; 307: 149–150.Google Scholar
Braun, UK, Beyth, RJ, Ford, ME, McCullough, LB. Voices of African American, Caucasian, and Hispanic surrogates on the burdens of end-of-life decision-making. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23: 267–274.Google Scholar
Braun, UK, Naik, AD, McCullough, LB. Reconceptualizing the experience of surrogate decision making: reports vs genuine decisions. Ann Fam Med 2009; 7: 249–253.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×