巴西姑息治疗学院关于在姑息治疗中撤销和暂停维持生命干预措施的立场声明。

Critical care science Pub Date : 2024-09-09 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.62675/2965-2774.20240021-en
Edison Iglesias de Oliveira Vidal, Sabrina Correa da Costa Ribeiro, Maria Júlia Kovacs, Luciano Máximo da Silva, Daniele Pompei Sacardo, Simone Brasil de Oliveira Iglesias, Josimário João da Silva, Cinara Carneiro Neves, Diego Lima Ribeiro, Fernanda Gomes Lopes
{"title":"巴西姑息治疗学院关于在姑息治疗中撤销和暂停维持生命干预措施的立场声明。","authors":"Edison Iglesias de Oliveira Vidal, Sabrina Correa da Costa Ribeiro, Maria Júlia Kovacs, Luciano Máximo da Silva, Daniele Pompei Sacardo, Simone Brasil de Oliveira Iglesias, Josimário João da Silva, Cinara Carneiro Neves, Diego Lima Ribeiro, Fernanda Gomes Lopes","doi":"10.62675/2965-2774.20240021-en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The issue of withrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions is an important source of controversy among healthcare professionals caring for patients with serious illnesses. Misguided decisions, both in terms of the introduction/maintenance and the withdrawal/withholding of these measures, represent a source of avoidable suffering for patients, their loved ones, and healthcare professionals. This document represents the position statement of the Bioethics Committee of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on this issue and establishes seven principles to guide, from a bioethical perspective, the approach to situations related to this topic in the context of palliative care in Brazil. The position statement establishes the equivalence between the withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining interventions and the inadequacy related to initiating or maintaining such measures in contexts where they are in disagreement with the values and care goals defined together with patients and their families. Additionally, the position statement distinguishes strictly futile treatments from potentially inappropriate treatments and elucidates their critical implications for the appropriateness of the medical decision-making process in this context. Finally, we address the issue of conscientious objection and its limits, determine that the ethical commitment to the relief of suffering should not be influenced by the decision to employ or not employ life-sustaining interventions and warn against the use of language that causes patients/families to believe that only one of the available options related to the use or nonuse of these interventions will enable the relief of suffering.</p>","PeriodicalId":72721,"journal":{"name":"Critical care science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11463991/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Position statement of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions in the context of palliative care.\",\"authors\":\"Edison Iglesias de Oliveira Vidal, Sabrina Correa da Costa Ribeiro, Maria Júlia Kovacs, Luciano Máximo da Silva, Daniele Pompei Sacardo, Simone Brasil de Oliveira Iglesias, Josimário João da Silva, Cinara Carneiro Neves, Diego Lima Ribeiro, Fernanda Gomes Lopes\",\"doi\":\"10.62675/2965-2774.20240021-en\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The issue of withrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions is an important source of controversy among healthcare professionals caring for patients with serious illnesses. Misguided decisions, both in terms of the introduction/maintenance and the withdrawal/withholding of these measures, represent a source of avoidable suffering for patients, their loved ones, and healthcare professionals. This document represents the position statement of the Bioethics Committee of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on this issue and establishes seven principles to guide, from a bioethical perspective, the approach to situations related to this topic in the context of palliative care in Brazil. The position statement establishes the equivalence between the withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining interventions and the inadequacy related to initiating or maintaining such measures in contexts where they are in disagreement with the values and care goals defined together with patients and their families. Additionally, the position statement distinguishes strictly futile treatments from potentially inappropriate treatments and elucidates their critical implications for the appropriateness of the medical decision-making process in this context. Finally, we address the issue of conscientious objection and its limits, determine that the ethical commitment to the relief of suffering should not be influenced by the decision to employ or not employ life-sustaining interventions and warn against the use of language that causes patients/families to believe that only one of the available options related to the use or nonuse of these interventions will enable the relief of suffering.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72721,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical care science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11463991/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical care science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.62675/2965-2774.20240021-en\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.62675/2965-2774.20240021-en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在护理重病患者的医护人员中,撤回和暂停维持生命干预措施的问题是引起争议的一个重要原因。无论是引入/维持还是撤出/暂停这些措施,错误的决定都会给患者、其亲人和医护人员带来本可避免的痛苦。本文件代表了巴西姑息关怀学会生命伦理学委员会对这一问题的立场声明,并确立了七项原则,从生命伦理学的角度指导巴西姑息关怀机构如何处理与这一问题相关的情况。该立场声明规定,在与患者及其家属共同确定的价值观和护理目标不一致的情况下,撤消和暂停维持生命的干预措施与启动或维持此类措施的不足之处是等同的。此外,该立场声明还将严格意义上的无效治疗与潜在的不当治疗区分开来,并阐明了它们对医疗决策过程在这种情况下的适当性的重要影响。最后,我们讨论了出于良心拒服兵役的问题及其局限性,确定减轻痛苦的伦理承诺不应受到采用或不采用维持生命干预措施的决定的影响,并警告不要使用导致患者/家属认为只有与采用或不采用这些干预措施相关的可用选项中的一种才能减轻痛苦的语言。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Position statement of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions in the context of palliative care.

The issue of withrawing and withholding life-sustaining interventions is an important source of controversy among healthcare professionals caring for patients with serious illnesses. Misguided decisions, both in terms of the introduction/maintenance and the withdrawal/withholding of these measures, represent a source of avoidable suffering for patients, their loved ones, and healthcare professionals. This document represents the position statement of the Bioethics Committee of the Brazilian Palliative Care Academy on this issue and establishes seven principles to guide, from a bioethical perspective, the approach to situations related to this topic in the context of palliative care in Brazil. The position statement establishes the equivalence between the withdrawal and withholding of life-sustaining interventions and the inadequacy related to initiating or maintaining such measures in contexts where they are in disagreement with the values and care goals defined together with patients and their families. Additionally, the position statement distinguishes strictly futile treatments from potentially inappropriate treatments and elucidates their critical implications for the appropriateness of the medical decision-making process in this context. Finally, we address the issue of conscientious objection and its limits, determine that the ethical commitment to the relief of suffering should not be influenced by the decision to employ or not employ life-sustaining interventions and warn against the use of language that causes patients/families to believe that only one of the available options related to the use or nonuse of these interventions will enable the relief of suffering.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
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