Lindsay R Semler, Ellen M Robinson, M Cornelia Cremens, Fred Romain
{"title":"重症监护室中的生命终结伦理咨询:谁有最终决定权--患者还是家属?","authors":"Lindsay R Semler, Ellen M Robinson, M Cornelia Cremens, Fred Romain","doi":"10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A 72-year-old gentleman with metastatic pancreatic cancer was admitted to the ICU with increased oxygen demand and confusion, likely related to pulmonary metastases. In the presence of his son, the healthcare agent, and the team, the patient requested to be do-not-attempt-resuscitation and do-not-intubate (DNR/DNI) before losing decision-making capacity. When the patient's brother and another son heard of the code status change, they insisted on a return to Full Code. Although the youngest son (the healthcare agent) was present for the patient's request to be DNR/DNI, he declined to represent the patient's wishes and agreed with a return to Full Code. Numerous discussions over subsequent days revolved around the attempt to honor the patient's wishes in the setting of the surrogate's unwillingness or inability to make decisions in alignment with his father's wishes. This case reviews and analyzes the ethical options available to the clinical team in responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatment at a patient's end of life, and explores the roles of relational autonomy, beneficence vs nonmaleficence, and holding the balance of clinicians' and ethicists' professional, legal, and ethical responsibilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":9782,"journal":{"name":"Chest","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An End-of-Life Ethics Consult in the ICU: Who Has the Final Say- The Patient or the Family?\",\"authors\":\"Lindsay R Semler, Ellen M Robinson, M Cornelia Cremens, Fred Romain\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A 72-year-old gentleman with metastatic pancreatic cancer was admitted to the ICU with increased oxygen demand and confusion, likely related to pulmonary metastases. In the presence of his son, the healthcare agent, and the team, the patient requested to be do-not-attempt-resuscitation and do-not-intubate (DNR/DNI) before losing decision-making capacity. When the patient's brother and another son heard of the code status change, they insisted on a return to Full Code. Although the youngest son (the healthcare agent) was present for the patient's request to be DNR/DNI, he declined to represent the patient's wishes and agreed with a return to Full Code. Numerous discussions over subsequent days revolved around the attempt to honor the patient's wishes in the setting of the surrogate's unwillingness or inability to make decisions in alignment with his father's wishes. This case reviews and analyzes the ethical options available to the clinical team in responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatment at a patient's end of life, and explores the roles of relational autonomy, beneficence vs nonmaleficence, and holding the balance of clinicians' and ethicists' professional, legal, and ethical responsibilities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chest\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chest\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.028\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chest","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2024.10.028","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
An End-of-Life Ethics Consult in the ICU: Who Has the Final Say- The Patient or the Family?
A 72-year-old gentleman with metastatic pancreatic cancer was admitted to the ICU with increased oxygen demand and confusion, likely related to pulmonary metastases. In the presence of his son, the healthcare agent, and the team, the patient requested to be do-not-attempt-resuscitation and do-not-intubate (DNR/DNI) before losing decision-making capacity. When the patient's brother and another son heard of the code status change, they insisted on a return to Full Code. Although the youngest son (the healthcare agent) was present for the patient's request to be DNR/DNI, he declined to represent the patient's wishes and agreed with a return to Full Code. Numerous discussions over subsequent days revolved around the attempt to honor the patient's wishes in the setting of the surrogate's unwillingness or inability to make decisions in alignment with his father's wishes. This case reviews and analyzes the ethical options available to the clinical team in responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatment at a patient's end of life, and explores the roles of relational autonomy, beneficence vs nonmaleficence, and holding the balance of clinicians' and ethicists' professional, legal, and ethical responsibilities.
期刊介绍:
At CHEST, our mission is to revolutionize patient care through the collaboration of multidisciplinary clinicians in the fields of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. We achieve this by publishing cutting-edge clinical research that addresses current challenges and brings forth future advancements. To enhance understanding in a rapidly evolving field, CHEST also features review articles, commentaries, and facilitates discussions on emerging controversies. We place great emphasis on scientific rigor, employing a rigorous peer review process, and ensuring all accepted content is published online within two weeks.