Search

El trasplante de órganos sólidos constituye el tratamiento de un gran número de enfermedades en fase terminal, mejora globalmente la supervivencia y la calidad de vida de los pacientes sometidos a este tipo de intervención y es considerado como un beneficioso progreso de la medicina para el conjunto de la sociedad. En las últimas décadas, y debido al estancamiento en la cantidad de donaciones y al aumento progresivo de las listas de espera, se han desarrollado diferentes acciones con el objetivo de ampliar el número potencial de donantes, reconsiderando nuevamente aquellos procedentes de parada cardiocirculatoria (donantes en asistolia). El objetivo de este trabajo consiste en reflexionar sobre la legitimidad de compaginar en un mismo proceso dos complejas decisiones éticas: la retirada de las técnicas de soporte vital (RTSV) y limitación del esfuerzo terapéutico (LET), y la posibilidad de considerar a estos pacientes como donantes de órganos. Con este propósito, analizaremos los problemas éticos que se plantean a cada paso en la toma de decisión y en las actuaciones en los programas en asistolia controlada, según el criterio de donantes tipo III adoptado en la conferencia de Maastricht de 1995, como fundamento para establecer un juicio ético de todo el proceso. Solid organs trasplant constitutes a treatment for many diseases in terminal phase. Patients subjected to this type of intervention enhance survival and quality of life in general and it is considered a beneficial progress in medicine for society. In the last decades and due to the stagnation of donations and the progressive increase of waiting lists, some actions have been developed with the goal to widen the potential number of donors, reconsidering again those coming from cardiovascular arrest (asystole donors). The aim of this article consists in reflecting on the legitimacy of combining in the same process two complex ethical decisions: the withdrawal of life support techniques (WLST) and the limitation of therapeutic effort (LTE), and the possibility of considering these patients as organ donors. With this purpose, we will analyze the ethical problems involved in each step in decision making and on the actions taken by controlled asystole programs, according to the criteria of type III donors of Masstricht conference, 1995, as base to establish an ethical judgment for the process. O transplante de órgãos sólidos constitui o tratamento de um grande número de enfermidades em fase terminal, melhora globalmente a sobrevivência e a qualidade de vida dos pacientes submetidos a este tipo de intervenção e é considerado como um beneficente progresso da medicina para o conjunto da sociedade. Nas últimas décadas, e devido ao estancamento na quantidade de doações e ao aumento progressivo das listas de espera, desenvolveram-se diferentes ações com o objetivo de ampliar o número potencial de doadores, reconsiderando novamente aqueles procedentes de parada cardiocirculatória (doadores em assistolia). O objetivo deste trabalho consiste em refletir sobre a legitimidade de compaginar num mesmo processo duas complexas decisões éticas: a retirada das técnicas de suporte vital (RTSV) e limitação do esforço terapêutico (LET), e a possibilidade de considerar estes pacientes como doadores de órgãos. Com este propósito, analisaremos os problemas éticos que se apresentam a cada passo na tomada de decisão e nas atuações nos programas em assistolia controlada, segundo o critério de doadores tipo III adotado na conferência de Maastricht de 1995, como fundamento para estabelecer um juízo ético de todo o processo.

The most difficult of treatment limitation decisions, both for physicians and families, is the withdrawal of mechanical ventilation (MV). Many fears and uncer-tainties appear in this decision. They are described as “ten myths” whose falseness is argued in this article. The myths are: 1) Withdrawing MV causes the patient’s death; 2) Withdrawing MV is euthanasia; 3) Withholding and withdrawing MV are morally different; 4) MV can be withdrawn only when the patient has asked for it; 5) Chilean law only authorizes to withdraw VM when brain death has occurred; 6) Withdrawing MV cannot be done if the patient is not an organ donor; 7) Physicians who withdraw MV are in high risk of legal claims; 8) To withdraw MV the physician needs an authorization from the hospital ethics committee, lawyer or institutional authority; 9) There is only one way to withdraw MV; 10) Withdrawing MV produces great suffering to the patient’s family. Making clear that these myths are false facilitates appropriate decisions, therefore preventing “therapeutic obstinacy” and more suffering of terminally ill patients, which favors their peaceful death. For the physician this goal should be as rewarding as preventing the death of a curable patient.

The most difficult of treatment limitation decisions, both for physicians and families, is the withdrawal of mechanical ventilation (MV). Many fears and uncer-tainties appear in this decision. They are described as “ten myths” whose falseness is argued in this article. The myths are: 1) Withdrawing MV causes the patient’s death; 2) Withdrawing MV is euthanasia; 3) Withholding and withdrawing MV are morally different; 4) MV can be withdrawn only when the patient has asked for it; 5) Chilean law only authorizes to withdraw VM when brain death has occurred; 6) Withdrawing MV cannot be done if the patient is not an organ donor; 7) Physicians who withdraw MV are in high risk of legal claims; 8) To withdraw MV the physician needs an authorization from the hospital ethics committee, lawyer or institutional authority; 9) There is only one way to withdraw MV; 10) Withdrawing MV produces great suffering to the patient’s family. Making clear that these myths are false facilitates appropriate decisions, therefore preventing “therapeutic obstinacy” and more suffering of terminally ill patients, which favors their peaceful death. For the physician this goal should be as rewarding as preventing the death of a curable patient.