Search

Introduction: Nurses, as frontline healthcare professionals, play a crucial role in ensuring patient safety, making their ability to speak up imperative. However, there are limited studies categorizing nurses based on their speaking‐up behaviors and comparing their organizational characteristics. This study aimed to identify patterns of nurses' speaking‐up behaviors and examine differences in organizational cultures, teamwork climates, and working conditions according to these patterns. Methods: A cross‐sectional survey was conducted, involving 597 nurses directly participating in nursing care in Korean hospitals. The Speaking Up about Patient Safety Questionnaire (SUPS‐Q), Nursing Organizational Culture Questionnaire, and Safety Attitude Questionnaire‐Korean version (SAQ‐K) were employed to measure nurses' speaking‐up‐related behaviors, organizational culture, teamwork climate, and working conditions. Cluster analysis was used to identify clusters of nurses based on their speaking‐up‐related behavior. Differences in nursing organizational culture, teamwork climate, and working conditions among clusters were analyzed using one‐way analyses of variance. Results: Three clusters of nurses were identified based on their speaking‐up‐related behaviors. Cluster 1 (35%) showed high perceived concerns, moderate withholding, and speaking up, while Cluster 2 (37%) had moderate concerns, low withholding, and high speaking up. Cluster 3 (28%) had moderate concerns but low withholding and speaking up. Clinical experience significantly differed among clusters, with less experienced nurses predominantly in Cluster 1. Cluster 2 had the most collaborative culture, best teamwork climate, and working conditions. Conclusion: Ensuring patient safety requires nurses to speak up about patient safety concerns. Creating safe working environments and fostering an organizational culture that prioritizes patient safety are essential steps in promoting nurses' willingness to speak up about patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical practice guidelines on limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU), in the form of withholding or withdrawal of LST, state that there is no ethical difference between the two. Such statements are not uniformly accepted worldwide, and there are few studies on LST limitation in Asia. This study aimed to evaluate the predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of LST in Singapore, focusing on the similarities and differences between the two approaches. Methods: This was a multicentre observational study of patients admitted to 21 adult ICUs across 9 public hospitals in Singapore over an average of three months per year from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome measures were withholding and withdrawal of LST (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors/inotropes). The secondary outcome measure was hospital mortality. Multivariable generalised mixed model analysis was used to identify independent predictors for withdrawal and withholding of LST and if LST limitation predicts hospital mortality. Results: There were 8907 patients and 9723 admissions. Of the former, 80.8% had no limitation of LST, 13.0% had LST withheld, and 6.2% had LST withdrawn. Common independent predictors for withholding and withdrawal were increasing age, absence of chronic kidney dialysis, greater dependence in activities of daily living, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before ICU admission, higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and higher level of care in the first 24 h of ICU admission. Additional predictors for withholding included being of Chinese race, the religions of Hinduism and Islam, malignancy, and chronic liver failure. The additional predictor for withdrawal was lower hospital paying class (with greater government subsidy for hospital bills). Hospital mortality in patients without LST limitation, with LST withholding, and with LST withdrawal was 10.6%, 82.1%, and 91.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Withholding (odds ratio 13.822, 95% confidence interval 9.987–19.132) and withdrawal (odds ratio 38.319, 95% confidence interval 24.351–60.298) were both found to be independent predictors of hospital mortality on multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Differences in the independent predictors of withholding and withdrawal of LST exist. Even after accounting for baseline characteristics, both withholding and withdrawal of LST independently predict hospital mortality. Later mortality in patients who had LST withdrawn compared to withholding suggests that the decision to withdraw may be at the point when medical futility is recognised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We study the optimality of allowing the designer to withhold or damage resources in Bayesian incentive compatible mechanisms for bilateral trade with independent private values. The following results hold when the buyer and the seller have discrete value distributions. Burning money or withholding the good from both traders never enhances welfare. Similarly, damaging the good for the buyer cannot increase welfare. By contrast, damaging the good for the seller may improve welfare. However, such welfare improvements are possible only if the damage hurts some lower valuation type of seller more severely than the highest valuation type. Results extend to the case of continuous value distributions under certain hypotheses regarding virtual values. Methods also apply to optimal Bayesian implementation for allocation problems. In the absence of property rights, damaging goods for any agent has negative welfare consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Decisions about life-sustaining therapy (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU) depend on predictions of survival as well as the expected functional capacity and self-perceived quality of life after discharge, especially in very old patients. However, prognostication for individual patients in this cohort is hampered by substantial uncertainty which can lead to a large variability of opinions and, eventually, decisions about LST. Moreover, decision-making processes are often embedded in a framework of ethical and legal recommendations which may vary between countries resulting in divergent management strategies. Methods: Based on a vignette scenario of a multi-morbid 87-year-old patient, this article illustrates the spectrum of opinions about LST among intensivsts with a special interest in very old patients, from ten countries/regions, representing diverse cultures and healthcare systems. Results: This survey of expert opinions and national recommendations demonstrates shared principles in the management of very old ICU patients. Some guidelines also acknowledge cultural differences between population groups. Although consensus with families should be sought, shared decision-making is not formally required or practised in all countries. Conclusions: This article shows similarities and differences in the decision-making for LST in very old ICU patients and recommends strategies to deal with prognostic uncertainty. Conflicts should be anticipated in situations where stakeholders have different cultural beliefs. There is a need for more collaborative research and training in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of diagnoses and the number of persons having diagnoses have increased substantially, and studies indicate that diagnoses are given or upheld even if they are unwarranted, that is, that they do not satisfy professionally accepted diagnostic criteria. In this article, the authors investigate the ethics of withholding and withdrawing unwarranted diagnoses. First, they investigate ethical aspects that make it difficult to withhold and to withdraw such diagnoses. Second, they scrutinize whether there are psychological factors, both in persons/patients and healthcare professionals, making it difficult to withdraw and withhold unwarranted diagnoses. Lastly, they use recent elements of the withholding-versus-withdrawing treatment debate in medical ethics to investigate whether there are any differences between withholding and withdrawing treatment and withdrawing and withholding unwarranted diagnoses. The authors conclude that it is crucial to acknowledge and address all these issues to reduce and avoid unwarranted diagnoses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limiting life-sustaining treatment (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU) by withholding or withdrawing interventional therapies is considered appropriate if there is no expectation of beneficial outcome. Prognostication for very old patients is challenging due to the substantial biological and functional heterogeneity in that group. We have previously identified seven phenotypes in that cohort with distinct patterns of acute and geriatric characteristics. This study investigates the relationship between these phenotypes and decisions to limit LST in the ICU. Methods: This study is a post hoc analysis of the prospective observational VIP2 study in patients aged 80 years or older admitted to ICUs in 22 countries. The VIP2 study documented demographic, acute and geriatric characteristics as well as organ support and decisions to limit LST in the ICU. Phenotypes were identified by clustering analysis of admission characteristics. Patients who were assigned to one of seven phenotypes (n = 1268) were analysed with regard to limitations of LST. Results: The incidence of decisions to withhold or withdraw LST was 26.5% and 8.1%, respectively. The two phenotypes describing patients with prominent geriatric features and a phenotype representing the oldest old patients with low severity of the critical condition had the largest odds for withholding decisions. The discriminatory performance of logistic regression models in predicting limitations of LST after admission to the ICU was the best after combining phenotype, ventilatory support and country as independent variables. Conclusions: Clinical phenotypes on ICU admission predict limitations of LST in the context of cultural norms (country). These findings can guide further research into biases and preferences involved in the decision-making about LST. Trial registration Clinical Trials NCT03370692 registered on 12 December 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims at investigating the phenomenon of censoring and withholding translated books in Jordan. The source of data is a list of all banned translated books at Yarmouk University Library in Jordan (n = 60). The list was first analyzed and classified thematically. Qualitative data were obtained via semi-structured interviews with the librarians. When available, reference was made to the paratextual material of the withheld translated books. Moreover, the official website of the Jordan Media Commission was consulted to identify the factors that may contribute to censoring and blocking translated works in Jordan. The results show that librarians ban books for various religious, moral, social, political, and ideological reasons. Furthermore, it was revealed that censorship in Jordan is subjectively conducted and does not follow clear-cut rules and regulations. Finally, using paratextual elements in investigating the motives for censoring books proved to be an effective method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Here, we report the management of a catastrophic COVID-19 Delta variant surge, which overloaded ICU capacity, using crisis standards of care (CSC) based on a multiapproach protocol.Design: Retrospective observational study.Setting: University Hospital of Guadeloupe.Patients: This study retrospectively included all patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia between August 11, 2021, and September 10, 2021, and were eligible for ICU admission.Intervention: Based on age, comorbidities, and disease severity, patients were assigned to three groups: Green (ICU admission as soon as possible), Orange (ICU admission after the admission of all patients in the Green group), and Red (no ICU admission).Measurements and Main Results: Among the 328 patients eligible for ICU admission, 100 (30%) were assigned to the Green group, 116 (35%) to the Orange group, and 112 (34%) to the Red group. No patient in the Green group died while waiting for an ICU bed, whereas 14 patients (12%) in the Orange group died while waiting for an ICU bed. The 90-day mortality rates were 24%, 37%, and 78% in the Green, Orange, and Red groups, respectively. A total of 130 patients were transferred to the ICU, including 79 from the Green group, 51 from the Orange group, and none from the Red group. Multivariate analysis revealed that among patients admitted to the ICU, death was independently associated with a longer time between ICU referral and ICU admission, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and the number of comorbidities, but not with triage group.Conclusions: CSC based on a multiapproach protocol allowed admission of all patients with a good prognosis. Higher mortality was associated with late admission, rather than triage group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Secrecy, privacy, confidentiality, concealment, disclosure, and gossip all involve sharing and withholding access to information. However, existing theories do not account for the fundamental similarity between these concepts. Accordingly, it is unclear when sharing and withholding access to information will have positive or negative effects and why these effects might occur. We argue that these problems can be addressed by conceptualizing these phenomena more broadly as different kinds of information-access regulation. Furthermore, we outline a social-identity theory of information-access regulation (SITIAR) that proposes that information-access regulation shapes shared social identity, explaining why people who have access to information feel a sense of togetherness with others who have the same access and a sense of separation from those who do not. This theoretical framework unifies diverse findings across disparate lines of research and generates a number of novel predictions about how information-access regulation affects individuals and groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Life expectancy is rising worldwide and increasing numbers of elderly patients are being admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Because ageing is associated with changes in organ function, increased frailty, reduced activities of daily living, reduced mobility, and reduced cognition, elderly patients represent a particular subgroup of ICU patients. Ethical decisions related to the appropriateness of intensive care and/or life‐sustaining interventions, the withdrawing and withholding of life support, and terminal sedation are more frequent in these patients and will be discussed in this review. Such decisions must be tailored to the individual to take into consideration personal beliefs and wishes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intensive care units (ICUs) around the world have been hugely impacted by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the vast numbers of patients admitted with COVID-19, requiring respiratory support and prolonged stays. This pressure, with resulting shortages of ICU beds, equipment, and staff has raised ethical dilemmas as physicians have had to determine how best to allocate the sparse resources. Here, we reflect on some of the major ethical aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including resource allocation and rationing, end-of-life decision-making, and communication and staff support. Importantly, these issues are regularly faced in non-pandemic ICU patient management and useful lessons can be learned from the discussions that have occurred as a result of the COVID-19 situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many countries have adopted new triage recommendations for use in the event that intensive care beds become scarce during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In addition to establishing the exact criteria regarding whether treatment for a newly arriving patient shows a sufficient likelihood of success, it is also necessary to ask whether patients already undergoing treatment whose prospects are low should be moved into palliative care if new patients with better prospects arrive. This question has led to divergent ethical guidelines. This paper explores the distinction between withholding and withdrawing medical treatment during times of scarcity. As a first central point, the paper argues that a revival of the ethical distinction between doing and allowing would have a revisionary impact on cases of voluntary treatment withdrawal. A second systematic focus lies in the concern that withdrawal due to scarcity might be considered a physical transgression and therefore more problematic than not treating someone in the first place. In light of the persistent disagreement, especially concerning the second issue, the paper concludes with two pragmatic proposals for how to handle the ethical uncertainty: (1) triage protocols should explicitly require that intensive care attempts are designed as time‐limited trials based on specified treatment goals, and this intent should be documented very clearly at the beginning of each treatment; and (2) lower survival prospects can be accepted for treatments that have already begun, compared with the respective triage rules for the initial access of patients to intensive care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When it is ethically justifiable to stop medical treatment? For many Muslim patients, families, and clinicians this ethical question remains a challenging one as Islamic ethico-legal guidance on such matters remains scattered and difficult to interpret. In light of this gap, we conducted a systematic literature review to aggregate rulings from Islamic jurists and juridical councils on whether, and when, it is permitted to withdraw and/or withhold life-sustaining care. A total of 16 fatwās were found, 8 of which were single-author rulings, and 8 represented the collective view of a juridical council. The fatwās are similar in that nearly all judge that Islamic law, provided certain conditions are met, permits abstaining from life-sustaining treatment. Notably, the justifying conditions appear to rely on physician assessment of the clinical prognosis. The fatwās differ when it comes to what conditions justify withdrawing or withholding life- sustaining care. Our analyses suggest that while notions of futility greatly impact the bioethical discourse regarding with holding and/or withdrawal of treatment, the conceptualization of futility lacks nuance. Therefore, clinicians, Islamic jurists, and bioethicists need to come together in order to unify a conception of medical futility and relate it to the ethics of withholding and/or withdrawal of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) that first occurred in Wuhan, China, is currently spreading throughout China. The majority of infected patients either traveled to Wuhan or came into contact with an infected person from Wuhan. Investigating members of the public with a travel history to Wuhan became the primary focus of the Chinese government's epidemic prevention and control measures, but several instances of withheld histories were uncovered as localized clusters of infections broke out. This study investigated the public's willingness and beliefs associated with reporting travel history to high-risk epidemic regions, to provide effective suggestions and measures for encouraging travel reporting.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted online between February 12 and 19, 2020. Descriptive analysis, chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test were used to identify socio-demographic factors and beliefs associated with reporting, as well as their impact on the willingness to report on travel history to high-risk epidemic regions.Results: Of the 1344 respondents, 91 (6.77%) expressed an inclination to deliberately withhold travel history. Those who understood the benefits of reporting and the legal consequences for deliberately withholding information, showed greater willingness to report their history (P < 0.05); conversely, those who believed reporting would stigmatize them and feared being quarantined after reporting showed less willingness to report (P < 0.05).Conclusions: As any incident of withheld history can have unpredictable outcomes, the proportion of people who deliberately withhold information deserves attention. Appropriate public risk communication and public advocacy strategies should be implemented to strengthen the understanding that reporting on travel history facilitates infection screening and prompt treatment, and to decrease the fear of potentially becoming quarantined after reporting. Additionally, social support and policies should be established, and measures should be taken to alleviate stigmatization and discrimination against potential patients and reporters of travel history. Reinforcing the legal accountability of withholding travel history and strengthening systematic community monitoring are the measures that China is currently taking to encourage reporting on travel history to high-risk epidemic regions. These non-pharmaceutical interventions are relevant for countries that are currently facing the spread of the epidemic and those at risk of its potential spread. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate whether parent-initiated or doctor-initiated decisions about limiting life-sustaining treatment (LST) in neonatal care has consequences for how possible courses of action are presented.Method: Formal conversations (n = 27) between doctors and parents of critically ill babies from two level 3 neonatal intensive care units were audio or video recorded. Sequences of talk where decisions about limiting LST were presented were analysed using Conversation Analysis and coded using a Conversation Analytic informed coding framework. Relationships between codes were analysed using Fisher's exact test.Results: When parents initiated the decision point, doctors subsequently tended to refer to or list available options. When doctors initiated, they tended to use 'recommendations' or 'single-option' choice (conditional) formats (p=0.017) that did not include multiple treatment options. Parent initiations overwhelmingly concerned withdrawal, as opposed to withholding of LST (p=0.030).Conclusion: Aligning parents to the trajectory of the news about their baby's poor condition may influence how the doctor subsequently presents the decision to limit LST, and thereby the extent to which parents are invited to participate in shared decision-making.Practice Implications: Explicitly proposing treatment options may provide parents with opportunities to be involved in decisions for their critically ill babies, thereby fostering shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Legal concerns have been implicated in the occurrence of variability in decisions of limitations of medical treatment (LOMT) before death. Objective: We aimed to assess differences in perceptions between physicians and prosecutors toward LOMT. Measurements: We sent a survey to intensivists, oncologists, and prosecutors from Brazil, from February 2018 to May 2018. Respondents rated the degree of agreement with withholding or withdrawal of therapies in four different vignettes portraying a patient with terminal lung cancer. We measured the difference in agreement between respondents. Results: There were 748 respondents, with 522 (69.8%) intensivists, 106 (14.2%) oncologists, and 120 (16%) prosecutors. Most respondents agreed with withhold of chemotherapy (95.2%), withhold of mechanical ventilation (MV) (90.2%), and withdrawal of MV (78.4%), but most (75%) disagreed with withdrawal of MV without surrogate's consent. Prosecutors were less likely than intensivists and oncologists to agree with withhold of chemotherapy (95.7% vs. 99.2% vs. 100%, respectively, p < 0.001) and withhold of MV (82.4% vs. 98.3% vs. 97.9%, respectively, p < 0.001), whereas intensivists were more likely to agree with withdrawal of MV than oncologists (87.1% vs. 76.1%, p = 0.002). Moreover, prosecutors were more likely to agree with withholding of active cancer treatment than with withholding of MV [difference (95% confidence interval, CI) = 13.2% (5.2 to 21.6), p = 0.001], whereas physicians were more likely to agree with withholding than with withdrawal of MV [difference (95% CI) = 10.9% (7.8 to 14), p < 0.001]. Conclusions: This study found differences and agreements in perceptions toward LOMT between prosecutors, intensivists, and oncologists, which may inform the discourse aimed at improving end-of-life decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In healthcare priority settings, early access to treatment before reimbursement decisions gives rise to problems of whether negative decisions for cost‐effectiveness reasons should result in withdrawing treatment, already accessed by patients. Among professionals there seems to be a strong attitude to distinguish between withdrawing and withholding treatment, viewing the former as ethically worse. In this article the distinction between withdrawing and withholding treatment for reasons of cost effectiveness is explored by analysing the doing/allowing distinction, different theories of justice, consequentialist and virtue perspectives. The authors do not find any strong reasons for an intrinsic difference, but do find some reasons for a consequentialist difference, given present attitudes. However, overall, such a difference does not, all things considered, provide a convincing reason against withdrawal, given the greater consequentialist gain of using cost‐effective treatment. As a result, patients should be properly informed when given early access to treatment, that such treatment can be later withdrawn following a negative reimbursement decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Relatives of intensive care unit patients who lack or have reduced capacity to consent are entitled to information and participation in decision-making together with the patient. Practice varies with legislation in different countries. In Norway, crucial decisions such as withdrawing treatment are made by clinicians, usually morally justified to relatives with reference to the principle of non-maleficence. The relatives should, however, be consulted about whether they know what the patient would have wished in the situation. Research objectives: To examine and describe relatives' experiences of responsibility in the intensive care unit decision-making process. Research design: A secondary analysis of interviews with bereaved relatives of intensive care unit patients was performed, using a narrative analytical approach. Participants and research context: In all, 27 relatives of 21 deceased intensive care unit patients were interviewed about their experiences from the end-of-life decision-making process. Most interviews took place in the participants' homes, 3–12 months after the patient's death. Ethical considerations: Based on informed consent, the study was approved by the Data Protection Official of the Norwegian Social Science Data Services and by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics. Findings: The results show that intensive care unit relatives experienced a sense of responsibility in the decision-making process, independently of clinicians' intention of sparing them. Some found this troublesome. Three different variants of participation were revealed, ranging from paternalism to a more active role for relatives. Discussion: For the study participants, the sense of responsibility reflects the fact that ethics and responsibility are grounded in the individual's relationship to other people. Relatives need to be included in a continuous dialogue over time to understand decisions and responsibility. Conclusion: Nurses and physicians should acknowledge and address relatives' sense of responsibility, include them in regular dialogue and help them separate their responsibility from that of the clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Decisions to limit life-prolonging treatment (DLT) are often accompanied by psychological and ethical difficulties. The aim of the study is to investigate prevalence and intensity of moral distress (MD) as well as potential causes experienced by oncology physicians and nurses in DLT situations.Methods: This prospective study at a German university hospital included n = 100 advanced cancer inpatients with DLT. We surveyed their respective physicians and nurses to assess MD in DLT using an adapted distress thermometer and an open-ended question to specify reasons of MD. We also collected data on the decision-making process from the perspective of the clinicians.Results: Physicians report MD in 67% (n = 51) and nurses in 74% (n = 67) of the cases. The MD level in nurses (mean 2.3; SD 2.3) is significantly higher (P = .005) than in physicians (mean 1.5; SD 1.4). Uncertainties concerning ethical aspects in DLT in a patient case are associated with MD in both physicians (P = .024) and nurses (P = .004). Involvement of nurses in DLT is the strongest predictor (P = .000) for MD as indicated by physicians. Nurses experience MD especially, if the patient has a low quality of life (P = .001).Conclusions: Moral distress is experienced by both oncologists and nurses in DLT. Nurses report higher MD intensity compared with physicians although the ultimate responsibility for DLT lies with the physicians. Support for the challenging decisions may be provided through the implementation of an ethical guideline and enhanced interprofessional communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To document and analyse the decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment (LST) in a population of very old patients admitted to the ICU.Methods: This prospective study included intensive care patients aged ≥ 80 years in 309 ICUs from 21 European countries with 30-day mortality follow-up.Results: LST limitation was identified in 1356/5021 (27.2%) of patients: 15% had a withholding decision and 12.2% a withdrawal decision (including those with a previous withholding decision). Patients with LST limitation were older, more frail, more severely ill and less frequently electively admitted. Patients with withdrawal of LST were more frequently male and had a longer ICU length of stay. The ICU and 30-day mortality were, respectively, 29.1 and 53.1% in the withholding group and 82.2% and 93.1% in the withdrawal group. LST was less frequently limited in eastern and southern European countries than in northern Europe. The patient-independent factors associated with LST limitation were: acute ICU admission (OR 5.77, 95% CI 4.32-7.7), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) score (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.78-2.42), increased age (each 5 years of increase in age had a OR of 1.22 (95% CI 1.12-1.34) and SOFA score [OR of 1.07 (95% CI 1.05-1.09 per point)]. The frequency of LST limitation was higher in countries with high GDP and was lower in religious countries.Conclusions: The most important patient variables associated with the instigation of LST limitation were acute admission, frailty, age, admission SOFA score and country.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NTC03134807). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper takes the philosophical notion of suberogatory acts or morally permissible moral mistakes and, via a reinterpretation of a thought experiment from the medical ethics literature, offers an initial demonstration of their relevance to the field of medical ethics. That is, at least in regards to this case, we demonstrate that the concept of morally permissible moral mistakes has a bearing on medical decision-making. We therefore suggest that these concepts may have broader importance for the discourse on medical ethics and should receive fuller consideration by those working the field. The focus of the discussion we present is on a particular thought experiment originally presented by Sulmasy and Sugarman. Their case formed the basis of an exchange about the moral equivalence of withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment. The analysis Sulmasy and Sugarman set out is significant because, contrary to common bioethical opinion, it implies that the difference between withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment holds, rather than lacks, moral significance. Following a brief discussion of rejoinders to Sulmasy and Sugarman’s article, we present a constructive reinterpretation of the thought experiment, one that draws on the idea of suberogatory acts or “morally permissible moral mistakes.” Our analysis, or so we suggest, accounts for the differing moral intuitions that the case prompts. However, it also calls into question the degree to which this thought experiment can be thought of as illustrating the moral (non)equivalence of withdrawing and withholding life-saving treatment. Rather, we conclude that it primarily illuminates something about the ethical parameters of healthcare when family members, particularly parents, are involved in decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aims of this study were to assess the attitudes of Slovene paediatricians to aspects of end-of-life (EOL) care and compare these attitudes between paediatric intensivists, paediatric specialists and paediatric residents.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional survey, using a specifically designed 43-item anonymous questionnaire.Results: We included 323 out of 586 Slovene paediatricians and residents, while 46.7% (151 of 323) of them responded to our questionnaire. More than half of intensivists (54.2%) had sought counsel from the Committee for Medical Ethics in the past as compared with 12.0% and 12.1% of specialists and residents, respectively (P < 0.001). The decision to limit life-sustaining treatment (LST) was found to be ethically acceptable in all groups of respondents. The highest level of agreement was found in residents (90.2%), followed by 83.3% among intensivists and 73.8% among specialists (P = not statistically significant (NS)). Disagreement with termination of hydration was highest among residents (85%) and intensivists (79.2%) while it was lower among specialists (66.7%) (P = NS). Patient's best interest, good clinical practice and patient's autonomous decision were graded as the top three aspects of the EOL care, while cost effectiveness and availability of patient's bed in intensive care were the least important.Conclusions: The decision to limit LST measures was found to be ethically acceptable for Slovene paediatricians. No major differences were found among paediatric intensivists, specialist paediatricians and paediatric residents in the attitudes towards the EOL care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a theoretical and empirically informed examination of the naturalist distinction between withholding and withdrawing life-support. Drawing on the history of mechanical ventilation and on a recent Israeli law containing a novel approach to disconnecting life-support at the end of life, it is argued that the design of machines predicates the division line between "active" and "passive" interventions, and that the distinction itself might be morally self-defeating. Informed by insights from moral psychology, behavioral economics and philosophies of technology, the paper warns against the placement of this old distinction at the heart of the moral and legal regulation of life-support at the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Since the implementation of two French laws in 2002 and 2005 and the implementation of guidelines about End-of-Life (EoL) decisions, few studies concerning EoL practices in French intensive care units (ICUs) have been reported. This study was aimed at assessing compliance with recommendations and current legislation concerning EoL decisions. Method Prospective observational study based on 1-day audit conducted from January to May 2009 in 66 southern French ICUs. Results Six hundred and twenty-five patients were included (median age: 63 [52–76] years, median SAPS II: 46 [34–58]). The written designation of a surrogate decision-maker was reported for 87 (15%) patients. Advance directives were completed for only 4% of patients. The EoL decision-making process consisted in a multidisciplinary approach for 99 (47%) patients and was recorded in the medical chart for 63 (64%) cases. Families were informed about medical decisions in 58% of cases. This proportion was higher (87%) if a decision to forego life-sustaining therapy was made. EoL decisions consisted of withholding treatments for 72 (94%) patients and withdrawal of treatments for 5 (6%) patients. In the multivariate stepwise logistic regression, four variables were independently associated with a decision to forego life support: preexisting dependence on others ( P < 0.0001), advance directives ( P = 0.01), age ( P = 0.008) and the SAPS 2 score ( P = 0.009). Conclusion The major finding of the present study is the existence of a gap between the widely approved EoL recommendations made by scientific societies and the daily practice of southern French ICUs. Even if EoL decisions are mostly shared with relatives, their written documentation in medical charts remains insufficient. Concerning EoL practices, the withdrawal of treatment remains an uncommon decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Promoting self-discovery appears to be a general relevancy oriented to by participants not only in ordinary conversation (Schegloff et al., 1977) but also in various sorts of institutional encounters (e.g., Edwards & Stokoe, 2007). The push for self-repair, for example, is considered an important learning activity which may be inhibited or retarded by other-repair (van Lier, 1988; Ohta, 2000). The aim of this paper is to investigate the complexities of the practices utilized to accomplish promoting self-discovery in the language classroom. Based on a conversation analytic account of 30 hours of audio and video-recorded adult ESL (English as a Second Language) lessons, I show two ways in which promoting self-discovery may become problematic in its implementation. I argue that language instructors need to be sensitized to the delicate balance between promoting self-discovery and providing interactionally contingent help. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in medicine can reduce active euthanasia of newborns with severe anomalies or unusual prematurity, but they cannot eliminate it. In the Netherlands, voluntary active euthanasia among adults and adolescents has been allowed since 2002, when the so-called Groningen Protocol (GP) was formulated as an extension of the law on extremely premature and severely ill newborns. It is maintained that, at bioethical level, it serves the principle of beneficence. Other European countries do not accept the GP, including Belgium. Admissibility of active euthanasia is a necessary, though inadequate, condition for acceptance of the GP. Greece generally prohibits euthanasia, although the legal doctrine considers some of the forms of euthanasia permissible, but not active or involuntary euthanasia. The wide acceptance of passive newborns euthanasia, especially when the gestational age of the newborns is 22-25 weeks ("grey zone"), admissibility of practices within the limits between active and passive euthanasia (e.g., withholding/withdrawing), of "indirect active euthanasia" and abortion of the late fetus, the tendency to accept after-birth-abortion (infanticide) in the bioethical theory, the lower threshold for application of withdrawing in neonatal intensive care units compared with pediatric intensive care units, all the above advocate wider acceptance of the GP. However, the GP paves the way for a wide application of involuntary (or pseudo-voluntary) euthanasia (slippery slope) and contains some ambiguous concepts and requirements (e.g., "unbearable suffering"). It is suggested that the approach to the sensitive and controversial ethical dilemmas concerning the severely ill newborns is done not through the GP, but rather, through a combination of virtue bioethics (especially in the countries of the so-called "Mediterranean bioethical zone") and of the principles of principlism which is enriched, however, with the "principle of mutuality" (enhancement of all values and principles, especially with the principles of "beneficence" and "justice"), in order to achieve the "maximal" bioethical approach, along with the establishment of circumstances and alternatives that minimize or eliminate the relevant bioethical dilemmas and conflicts between the fundamental principles. Thus, the most appropriate/fairest choices are made (by trained parents and physicians), considering all interests involved as much as possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article engages with the concept of authenticity as deployed in anthropology. The first section critiques authenticity as a simple reference to cultural purity, a traditional isomorphism or historical verisimilitude or as an ‘ethnographic authenticity’. Demarcation of authenticity must take into account philosophical literature that argues that authenticity is an existential question of the ‘modern’ era. Thus, authenticity is offered to us as individuals as a remedy for the maladies of modernity: alienation, anomie and alterity. Authenticity is then discussed as a question of value within an economy of cultural politics that often draws on simulacra, creating cultural relics of dubious origin. The final section discusses various methodological failures andproblematiquesthat are highlighted by the concern for, and scrutiny of, authenticity. The first is the simulacral failure. The subjects of anthropology are mostly real flesh-and-blood people-on-the-ground with real needs. In contrast is the simulacral subject, the brand, the tourist image, the media image or the ever-familiar hyper-real bushmen. Lastly, the article considers what Spivak calls ‘withholding’ – a resistance to authentic representation by the Other. Resistance suggests a need for a radically altered engagement with the Other that includes both a deepening, and an awareness, of anthropology as a process of common ontological unfolding. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: For the last 20 years or so, conflicts on life-support have become the object of widespread media coverage. By focusing public opinion on the alleged physicians’ unreasonable obstinacy, these publicized cases impact social debates on life-support. By these, they justify claims for the legalization of assisted suicide, specifically the practice of termination of life by lethal injection. Via a conducted survey of the various caretakers and families involved in this type of situation, we propose an analysis based on the different forms of unreasonable obstinacy. The reasonable or unreasonable nature of treatments can often be perceived differently by physicians, caretakers and families. At least 6 unreasonable obstinacy cases can be brought to light. Publicized cases always involve a conflict between the physicians in charge and the families who view the situation as unreasonable. Nonetheless, evidence shows that in these situations, the roles are often reversed, and the families are the ones demanding the use of unreasonable care. A typical example of this is a recent case that became the object of legal proceedings in France. As it turns out, the publicized filter does not reflect the true reality of cases involving unreasonable care. Specific procedures could aid in notifying the existence of such situations. The role of health care professionals (excluding physicians) appears to play an essential part in preventing these situations from happening. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

End-of-life decisions are made daily in intensive care units worldwide. There are numerous factors affecting these decisions, including geographical location as well as religion and attitudes of caregivers, patients, and families. There is a spectrum of end-of-life care options from full continued care, withholding treatment, withdrawing treatment, and active life-ending procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To investigate the circumstances surrounding end-of life decisions ( Eo L) of infants with hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy ( HIE) and examine changes over a 10-year period. Methods Retrospective chart review of all infants with HIE who died during 2000-2004 and 2005-2009 in a Level III Neonatal Intensive Care Unit in Madrid, Spain. Results Of 70 infants with HIE, 18 died during the neonatal period. The mean age of death was 64.4 ± 51 h. In 17 of the 18 infants (94%), death was preceded by an Eo L decision, four after withholding therapy ( WH) and 13 after withdrawal therapy ( WDT). All infants with WH were previously stable and without respiratory support, while all 13 infants in the WDT group had respiratory support and three were unstable. The age of death was greater in the WH group than the WDT group (122 ± 63 h vs 50 ± 34; p < 0.001). After the Eo L decision, 11 (65%) infants received sedatives. There were no differences between the time periods. Conclusion In our cohort, most deaths in newborns with HIE were preceded by Eo L decisions mainly within the first 3 days after birth. We did not find changes over the first decade of the 21st century, and death was mainly determined by WDT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limitations of life-support interventions, by either withholding or withdrawing support, are integrated parts of intensive care unit (ICU) activities and are ethically acceptable. The end-of-life legal aspects and practices in United Arab Emirates ICUs are rarely mentioned in the medical literature. The objective of this study was to examine the current practice of limiting futile life-sustaining therapies in our ICU, modalities for implementing of these decisions, and documentations in dying critically ill patients. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective observational study conducted at our ICU. We studied all ICU patients who died from September 2008 to February 2009. Patients' baseline demo-graphics, past medical problems, diagnosis on admission to ICU, and decision to withhold, withdraw and their modalities were collected. Results: The electronic medical records of 67 patients were reviewed. The commonest method of limiting therapy was no escalation 53.6%. Interventions were withheld in 41.5%. "Do not resuscitate" order was documented in only 16.3%. The commonest method of documenting limitation of therapy was discussion with the family and documenting the prognosis and futility of additional therapy (73.3%). Patients who died early (<48 hrs) compared to patients who died late (>48 hrs) of ICU admission received terminal cardiopulmonary resuscitation more frequently (P < 0.007), had less frequent prognosis documentation (P < 0.009), and had more vasopressors administered (P < 0.006). Conclusion: Withholding therapy after discussion with the family was the preferred mode of limiting therapy in a dying patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study was designed to assess the ethical attitudes and practices of intensive care physicians regarding life-sustaining treatment in intensive care units (ICUs) in Poland. Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to intensive care physicians taking part in a national medical congress. Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous. Results: A total of 400 questionnaires were distributed, of which 217 (54%) were returned completed. Almost all respondents (93%) reported having withheld therapy, and 75% of respondents reported withdrawing therapy. Physicians aged 40 years and over who had no religious affiliation more frequently reported withholding treatment. Only 5% of physicians reported deliberately administering drugs until death ensued. Respondents from large hospitals (more than 400 beds) more easily accepted foregoing life-sustaining therapy in ICU patients. In clinical scenario in which the family demanded the maximum available treatment, physicians reported that they were considerably influenced to modify decisions concerning life-sustaining therapy. Conclusions: The ethical attitudes of intensive care physicians regarding end-of-life decisions are similar to the opinion presented in other European survey studies. The practice of withholding and withdrawing therapy in ICU patients is common in Poland. Actively shortening life is considered unacceptable. The request of the family even without legal consultation can influence physicians' decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recurring question among some crisis negotiators has revolved around the issue of retaining notes and any other forms of documentation and communication arising from the negotiation process. This article begins with a review of the facts of Brady v. Maryland. After discussing the legal questions raised and the decision of the court, the ramifications of the case are put into the context of crisis negotiations. The article concludes with recommendations about how negotiators can comply with the court's decision by using today's technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

End-of-life decisions represent one of the most complex and challenging issues in pediatric intensive care. These recommendations aim to offer Italian pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) teams a framework for the end-of-life decision-making process. The paper proposes a process based on the principle that the use of a diagnostic or therapeutic tool must comply with a ‘criterion of proportionality’. Appropriately informed parents, as natural interpreters and advocates of the best interests of their child, can contribute in assessing the burdensomeness of the treatment and determining its proportionality. The decision to limit, withdraw or withhold life-sustaining treatments considered disproportionate represents a clinically and ethically correct choice. This decision should be made (a) collectively by PICU team and the other caregivers, (b) with the explicit involvement of parents, and (c) noting in the patient's clinical record the decisions taken and the reasons behind them. The withdrawing or withholding of life support can never entail the abandonment of the patient nor the withdrawal of any therapy aimed at treating any form of suffering. No action aimed at deliberately hastening the death of the patient is ever acceptable. These recommendations advocate a decision as far as possible shared by patient (whenever feasible), parents and caregivers. Ensuring that all involved are kept fully informed and that there is open and timely communication between them is the key to achieving this. It is the physician in charge of the patient's care and the head of the unit who bear the main responsibility for the final decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article assesses the decisions to forego life-sustaining treatment (LST) in patients too sick for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, comparatively to patients admitted to the ICU. It reveals that all patients deemed to sick for ICU admission had decisions to forego LST. The article shows that these decisions were made without direct patient examination in two-thirds of refused patients.

Introduction: Over the last several years, there have been legal decisions and changes in medical directives concerning end-of-life decisions in Israel. Methods: The data were compared to evaluate the changes in the frequency and types of forgoing of life-sustaining treatment (FLST) in patients who were admitted to the ICU during period I (November 1994 to July 1995) and period II (January 1998 to January 1999). Results: During period I, there were 385 ICU admissions, and during period II there were 627 ICU admissions. In period I, FLST or death occurred in 13.5% of patients, and in 12% in period II. There was no significant difference in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (9% vs 13%, respectively), withholding therapy (90% vs 91%, respectively), or withdrawing therapy (0% vs 0%, respectively) between the two study periods. Conclusions: There was no significant change in the frequency or types of FLST in an Israeli ICU between 1994 and 1998, despite passage of a new Patients' Rights Law and the issuing of a Ministry of Health directive on the treatment of the terminally ill, both of which occurred in 1996, and recent district court decisions favoring the termination of life-sustaining therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the incidence of end-of-life decisions in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.Design and Setting: Prospective data collection and questionnaire in a 31-bed medicosurgical ICU in a university hospital.Patients and Participants: All 109 ICU patients who died during a 3-month period (April-June 2001). Members of the ICU team were also invited to complete a questionnaire regarding the circumstances of each patient's death. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed in 21 of the patients; other mechanisms leading to death were brain death (n=19), refractory shock (n=17), and refractory hypoxemia (n=2). The decision was taken in the remaining 50 patients to withdraw (n=43) or withhold (n=7) therapy. Questionnaires were completed for 68 patients, by physician and nurse in 40 cases, physician only in 20 cases, and nurse only in 8 cases. Questionnaires were obtained for 34 of 50 patients for whom a decision was made to limit therapy.Results: Respondents generally felt that the decision was timely (n=28, 82%), 5 (15%) felt the decision was too late, and one (3%) that the decision was made too soon, before the family could be informed.Conclusions: Therapeutic limitations are frequent in patients dying in the ICU, with withdrawing more common than withholding life support. Generally members of the ICU staff were satisfied with the end-of-life decisions made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine practices of Turkish anaesthesiologists with regard to withholding and withdrawal of life support from the critically ill. Three hundred and 69 questionnaires were returned (84% response). Over 90% of the respondents indicated that they were Muslim. We found that 66% of respondents had initiated written or oral do-not-resuscitate orders, most frequently after discussion with colleagues (82%). Conclusions: While a number of similarities were found between Turkish anaesthesiologists and those from other countries, some specific differences could be identified, particularly related to consensus decision-making and sharing information with other providers and the value of Ethics Committees in the decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we describe one way to use value premises, i.e. conceptions of what is right or wrong, good or bad, just or unjust. They may, in combination with the results from surveys on attitudes, be used to defend normative conclusions, for example changes in professional guidelines. Several ethical principles may be relevant when discussing an end-of-life decision. We use the preferences of those involved in or affected by that decision (the principle of autonomy) and the obligation to maximize benefits and minimize harm (the principle of beneficence) as value premises. To illustrate the ethical, empirical and logical issues relevant to assess normative conclusions, we present a Swedish survey of the attitudes of health care workers and the general public. In this survey, the physicians stated that they do not want the family to be the sole decision-maker, whilst the public did not want the physician to be the sole decision-maker. As a third option we propose joint decision-making regarding end-of-life decisions. This normative conclusion may be rationally discussed, not only by questioning scientific aspects of the survey, but also by critically assessing value premises (autonomy and beneficence) and the logic of the argument. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Résumé: La décision de réanimation en médecine d’urgence peut paraître complexe pour les patients âgés. Comment décider au plus juste sans risque d’obstination déraisonnable ? À partir d’un cas clinique chez une personne très âgée, nous montrons comment une prise en charge optimale peut être décidée en conformité avec l’esprit de la loi. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The authors suggested that this is the responsibility of physicians who are following patients with chronic and/or terminal diseases to obtain advance directives from patients in case they would not be able to communicate. It has been established that there is a lack of advance directives among patients admitted in emergency departments, especially for those coming from nursing homes despite the fact that advance directives could be useful to guide emergency care [2]. [Extracted from the article]

An 82 years old patient with background history of severe COPD, heart failure, multiple co-morbidities and poor quality of life was admitted with pneumonia and subsequently developed acute respiratory distress. There was an obvious conflict of opinion among her family members regarding decision making in her case. The patient time and again insisted against being resuscitated if she ever became seriously ill. However, she did not appoint a proxy decision maker or give an advance directive. This created an ethical dilemma, resulting a clash among the family members as well as her treating physicians concerning the withholding of active treatment and DNR orders in case of cardiorespiratory arrest. In the end the clinicians took lead and, with effective communication with the patient and the family members, made a final decision of withholding treatment in respect of the patient's dignity and autonomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the last two decades there has been an enormous development in treatment possibilities for the extremely premature infants and the Neonatologists have to face in their daily practice many decisional problems and ethical, moral and legal dilemmas. These concern decisions to initiate or withhold treatment directly at birth, decision to withdrawn treatment with the possible consequence that the child will die. The debate between 'sanctity' and 'quality' of life, aggressive treatment in relation to discrimination toward the disabled, the principle of 'beneficence' and the question of 'proportionality' of treatment, the concept of the newborn's 'best interest' are the ethical issues discussed. According to our opinion, ethical questions should not be regulated by law and the legal system should not interfere in the relationship patient - physician. Today more than ever, every neonatologist needs to become familiar with basic ethical concepts and the legal aspects in neonatal intensive care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the study by C. K. Morgan and colleagues regarding the description of the limitation of therapy practice known as "no escalation of care" (NEOC). The author mentions that the NEOC process was described by the researchers in the intensive care unit (ICU) and evaluated the outcome in patients with the use of the limitation of therapy. He adds that the authors have suggested further study on the subject.