Withholding the Heimlich Maneuver: Ethical Considerations.

Q3 Medicine Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2021-01-01
Laura Madigan-McCown
{"title":"Withholding the Heimlich Maneuver: Ethical Considerations.","authors":"Laura Madigan-McCown","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The topic of withholding the Heimlich maneuver as part of a do-not-attempt-to-resuscitate (DNAR) order or an advance directive has not been widely discussed in the clinical ethics literature. This discussion addresses a request by family members to withhold the Heimlich maneuver from a patient in a long-term care facility. A request to forgo the Heimlich maneuver seems to have prima facie categorical similarities to justifications for withholding life-saving treatments such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Further examination reveals significant distinctions. Such distinctions call into question the ethical appropriateness of including the Heimlich maneuver among interventions to be withheld as part of end-of-life care planning, and encourages a broader discussion of an increasingly uncritical deference to autonomy in end-of-life decision making. Most notably, the Heimlich maneuver is the only intervention known to effectively relieve the distressing symptoms of accidental choking. The Heimlich maneuver serves a palliative function and is the standard of care for accidental choking. The Heimlich maneuver should not be conflated with other life-prolonging interventions that may be withheld as part of end-of-life care planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"241-246"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The topic of withholding the Heimlich maneuver as part of a do-not-attempt-to-resuscitate (DNAR) order or an advance directive has not been widely discussed in the clinical ethics literature. This discussion addresses a request by family members to withhold the Heimlich maneuver from a patient in a long-term care facility. A request to forgo the Heimlich maneuver seems to have prima facie categorical similarities to justifications for withholding life-saving treatments such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Further examination reveals significant distinctions. Such distinctions call into question the ethical appropriateness of including the Heimlich maneuver among interventions to be withheld as part of end-of-life care planning, and encourages a broader discussion of an increasingly uncritical deference to autonomy in end-of-life decision making. Most notably, the Heimlich maneuver is the only intervention known to effectively relieve the distressing symptoms of accidental choking. The Heimlich maneuver serves a palliative function and is the standard of care for accidental choking. The Heimlich maneuver should not be conflated with other life-prolonging interventions that may be withheld as part of end-of-life care planning.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
保留海姆利克手法:伦理考虑。
作为不试图复苏(DNAR)命令或预先指示的一部分,保留海姆利克手法的主题尚未在临床伦理学文献中广泛讨论。本文讨论了家庭成员对长期护理机构的患者保留海姆利克手法的请求。放弃海姆利克氏操作法的要求似乎与拒绝心肺复苏术(CPR)等挽救生命的治疗的理由有初步的相似性。进一步的研究揭示了显著的区别。这样的区别引发了对将海姆利克急救法纳入临终关怀计划干预措施的伦理适宜性的质疑,并鼓励了对临终关怀决策中越来越不加批判地尊重自主权的更广泛讨论。最值得注意的是,海姆利克手法是唯一已知的干预措施,有效缓解意外窒息的痛苦症状。海姆利克手法具有缓和作用,是意外窒息的标准治疗方法。海姆利克手法不应该与其他延长生命的干预措施混为一谈,这些干预措施可能会作为临终关怀计划的一部分而被保留。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Ethics
Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.
期刊最新文献
Dual Advocates in Deceased Organ Donation: The Potential for Moral Distress in Organ Procurement Organization Staff. Duty to Family: Ethical Considerations in the Resuscitation Bay. Home Birth in the United States: An Evidence-Based Ethical Analysis. How Should We Allocate Divisible Resources? An Overlooked Question. New Ways to Help Patients Worst Off.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1