[Ethics in preclinical emergency medicine--on the topic of medical futility and resuscitation efforts].

Anaesthesiologie und Reanimation Pub Date : 1998-01-01
M Mohr, D Kettler
{"title":"[Ethics in preclinical emergency medicine--on the topic of medical futility and resuscitation efforts].","authors":"M Mohr,&nbsp;D Kettler","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In prehospital emergency medicine, physicians are repeatedly faced with the question of when cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) efforts should be withheld or terminated since they are clearly futile. Here, futile means the goal of saving life cannot be achieved. Determining futility involves qualitative und quantitative aspects. Does the possibility of simply restoring circulatory function justify the decision to initiate resuscitation or must the prospect of a prolonged meaningful life exist? The question of futility arises for the entire life-saving team during resuscitation efforts, for example, after traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest, prolonged down time, collapses in chronically-sick nursing home residents or during transport to hospital when prehospital CPR failed to restore spontaneous circulation. Possible solutions to this problem lie in restricting the objective of resuscitation to achieving a physiological effect in an organ system, i.e. regaining the cardiac pumping function, and in taking into account the chance of long-term survival and quality of life of the patient. Basically speaking, general ethical principles must be adhered to and these include consideration of a patient's right to self-determination. In the prehospital setting, however, the emergency physician is usually confronted with an unknown and unconscious patient and has no information about his preferences. In general, the patient's will to live and his desire for every effort to be made to save him can be assumed, even when there is only a slight chance of survival. Thus, unilateral decisions by emergency physicians to withhold CPR are only justified in special cases when it is obvious that CPR and preservation of life would not be in the patient's interest. When in doubt, resuscitation attempts must be made. The futility of these efforts may emerge later in hospital, or information becomes available regarding the patient's will which justifies an end to therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":76993,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiologie und Reanimation","volume":"23 1","pages":"20-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiologie und Reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In prehospital emergency medicine, physicians are repeatedly faced with the question of when cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) efforts should be withheld or terminated since they are clearly futile. Here, futile means the goal of saving life cannot be achieved. Determining futility involves qualitative und quantitative aspects. Does the possibility of simply restoring circulatory function justify the decision to initiate resuscitation or must the prospect of a prolonged meaningful life exist? The question of futility arises for the entire life-saving team during resuscitation efforts, for example, after traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest, prolonged down time, collapses in chronically-sick nursing home residents or during transport to hospital when prehospital CPR failed to restore spontaneous circulation. Possible solutions to this problem lie in restricting the objective of resuscitation to achieving a physiological effect in an organ system, i.e. regaining the cardiac pumping function, and in taking into account the chance of long-term survival and quality of life of the patient. Basically speaking, general ethical principles must be adhered to and these include consideration of a patient's right to self-determination. In the prehospital setting, however, the emergency physician is usually confronted with an unknown and unconscious patient and has no information about his preferences. In general, the patient's will to live and his desire for every effort to be made to save him can be assumed, even when there is only a slight chance of survival. Thus, unilateral decisions by emergency physicians to withhold CPR are only justified in special cases when it is obvious that CPR and preservation of life would not be in the patient's interest. When in doubt, resuscitation attempts must be made. The futility of these efforts may emerge later in hospital, or information becomes available regarding the patient's will which justifies an end to therapy.

[临床前急诊医学的伦理学——关于医疗无效和复苏努力的主题]。
在院前急救医学中,医生经常面临这样的问题:心肺复苏(CPR)的努力何时应该停止或终止,因为它们显然是徒劳的。在这里,徒劳的意思是挽救生命的目标无法实现。确定无用性涉及定性和定量两个方面。仅仅恢复循环功能的可能性是否证明了启动复苏的决定是正当的,还是必须存在延长有意义的生命的前景?在心肺复苏过程中,整个救生团队都会遇到徒劳无功的问题,例如,在创伤性心肺骤停后,长时间停机,长期患病的养老院居民晕倒,或者在院前心肺复苏未能恢复自然循环时送往医院的过程中。解决这一问题的可能方法是将复苏的目标限制在实现器官系统的生理作用,即恢复心脏泵血功能,并考虑患者长期生存的机会和生活质量。基本上,必须遵守一般的伦理原则,其中包括考虑病人的自决权。然而,在院前环境中,急诊医生通常面对的是一个未知的、无意识的病人,并且不知道他的偏好。一般来说,病人想要活下去的意愿和尽一切努力挽救他的愿望是可以假定的,即使只有一点点生存的机会。因此,急诊医生单方面决定不进行心肺复苏术,只有在特殊情况下,当心肺复苏术和维持生命显然不符合病人的利益时,才有理由。当有疑问时,必须进行复苏尝试。这些努力的无效可能会在医院的后期出现,或者有关患者意愿的信息可以证明结束治疗是合理的。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信