Is Left Ventricular Assist Device Deactivation Ethically Acceptable? A Study on the Euthanasia Debate.

IF 1.3 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Sara Roggi, Mario Picozzi
{"title":"Is Left Ventricular Assist Device Deactivation Ethically Acceptable? A Study on the Euthanasia Debate.","authors":"Sara Roggi, Mario Picozzi","doi":"10.1007/s10730-020-09408-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the last decades, new technologies have improved the survival of patients affected by chronic illnesses. Among them, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has represented a viable solution for patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Even though the LVAD prolongs life expectancy, patients' vulnerability generally increases during follow up and patients' request for the device withdrawal might occur. Such a request raises some ethical concerns in that it directly hastens the patient's death. Hence, in order to assess the ethical acceptability of LVAD withdrawal, we analyse and examine an ethical argument, widely adopted in the literature, that we call the \"descriptive approach\", which consists in giving a definition of life-sustaining treatment to evaluate the ethical acceptability of treatment withdrawal. Focusing attention on LVAD, we show criticisms of this perspective. Finally, we assess every patient's request of LVAD withdrawal through a prescriptive approach, which finds its roots in the criterion of proportionality.</p>","PeriodicalId":46160,"journal":{"name":"Hec Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8585806/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hec Forum","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-020-09408-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the last decades, new technologies have improved the survival of patients affected by chronic illnesses. Among them, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) has represented a viable solution for patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Even though the LVAD prolongs life expectancy, patients' vulnerability generally increases during follow up and patients' request for the device withdrawal might occur. Such a request raises some ethical concerns in that it directly hastens the patient's death. Hence, in order to assess the ethical acceptability of LVAD withdrawal, we analyse and examine an ethical argument, widely adopted in the literature, that we call the "descriptive approach", which consists in giving a definition of life-sustaining treatment to evaluate the ethical acceptability of treatment withdrawal. Focusing attention on LVAD, we show criticisms of this perspective. Finally, we assess every patient's request of LVAD withdrawal through a prescriptive approach, which finds its roots in the criterion of proportionality.

左心室辅助装置停用在伦理上可以接受吗?安乐死辩论研究。
过去几十年来,新技术提高了慢性病患者的生存率。其中,左心室辅助装置(LVAD)已成为晚期心力衰竭(HF)患者的可行解决方案。尽管 LVAD 延长了患者的预期寿命,但在随访期间,患者的脆弱性通常会增加,因此可能会出现患者要求撤除设备的情况。这种要求会引起一些伦理问题,因为它直接加速了患者的死亡。因此,为了评估撤除 LVAD 在伦理上的可接受性,我们分析并研究了文献中广泛采用的一种伦理论点,我们称之为 "描述性方法",它包括给出维持生命治疗的定义,以评估撤除治疗在伦理上的可接受性。我们将注意力集中在 LVAD 上,指出对这一观点的批评。最后,我们通过一种规定性方法来评估每一位患者要求撤除 LVAD 的请求,这种方法的根源在于相称性标准。
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
Hec Forum
Hec Forum ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: HEC Forum is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to practicing physicians, nurses, social workers, risk managers, attorneys, ethicists, and other HEC committee members. Contributions are welcomed from any pertinent source, but the text should be written to be appreciated by HEC members and lay readers. HEC Forum publishes essays, research papers, and features the following sections:Essays on Substantive Bioethical/Health Law Issues Analyses of Procedural or Operational Committee Issues Document Exchange Special Articles International Perspectives Mt./St. Anonymous: Cases and Institutional Policies Point/Counterpoint Argumentation Case Reviews, Analyses, and Resolutions Chairperson''s Section `Tough Spot'' Critical Annotations Health Law Alert Network News Letters to the Editors
×
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