End-of-life decisions - some international comparisons.

Q4 Medicine
Michael M Costello, Daniel J West, Bernardo Ramirez
{"title":"End-of-life decisions - some international comparisons.","authors":"Michael M Costello,&nbsp;Daniel J West,&nbsp;Bernardo Ramirez","doi":"10.12927/whp.2014.23861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Healthcare professionals often confront difficult issues in end-of-life care. Caregivers who question futile care and treatment can find themselves at odds with patients, family members and surrogates who stress patient autonomy. Many developed nations recognize hospital ethics committees as appropriate venues for discussion of end-of-life care, and palliative care initiatives in many hospitals play important roles in patient care at the end of life. As health systems worldwide confront diminishing resources and endless questioning on expenditures, the concept of medical futility has taken on increasing prominence. Medical professionals know intuitively that certain interventions near the end of life can neither extend life nor improve the quality of life remaining. In addition to medical futility, concerns about international economic pressures and enhanced recognition of patient autonomy lead to questions as to the appropriateness of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, assisted suicide and euthanasia. While some appellate courts seem willing to entertain questions on the legal rights of patients to access certain end-of-life measures, legislative bodies appear reluctant to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia. </p>","PeriodicalId":40038,"journal":{"name":"World health & population","volume":"15 2","pages":"4-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.12927/whp.2014.23861","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World health & population","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12927/whp.2014.23861","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Healthcare professionals often confront difficult issues in end-of-life care. Caregivers who question futile care and treatment can find themselves at odds with patients, family members and surrogates who stress patient autonomy. Many developed nations recognize hospital ethics committees as appropriate venues for discussion of end-of-life care, and palliative care initiatives in many hospitals play important roles in patient care at the end of life. As health systems worldwide confront diminishing resources and endless questioning on expenditures, the concept of medical futility has taken on increasing prominence. Medical professionals know intuitively that certain interventions near the end of life can neither extend life nor improve the quality of life remaining. In addition to medical futility, concerns about international economic pressures and enhanced recognition of patient autonomy lead to questions as to the appropriateness of withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, assisted suicide and euthanasia. While some appellate courts seem willing to entertain questions on the legal rights of patients to access certain end-of-life measures, legislative bodies appear reluctant to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia.

临终决定——一些国际比较。
医疗保健专业人员经常在临终关怀中遇到困难的问题。质疑无效护理和治疗的护理人员可能会发现自己与强调患者自主权的患者、家属和代理人存在分歧。许多发达国家承认医院伦理委员会是讨论临终关怀的适当场所,许多医院的姑息治疗倡议在临终病人护理中发挥着重要作用。由于世界各地的卫生系统面临着资源减少和无休止的支出问题,医疗徒劳的概念日益突出。医学专业人员凭直觉知道,生命末期的某些干预既不能延长生命,也不能提高剩余生命的质量。除了医疗上的徒劳之外,对国际经济压力和对病人自主权的进一步承认的关切导致了撤销维持生命治疗、协助自杀和安乐死是否适当的问题。虽然一些上诉法院似乎愿意接受有关患者获得某些临终措施的合法权利的问题,但立法机构似乎不愿将协助自杀和安乐死合法化。
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
World health & population
World health & population Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.30
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书