A Costly Separation Between Withdrawing and Withholding Treatment in Intensive Care

Ethical analyses, professional guidelines and legal decisions support the equivalence thesis for life-sustaining treatment: if it is ethical to withhold treatment, it would be ethical to withdraw the same treatment. In this paper we explore reasons why the majority of medical professionals disagree...

Description complète

Enregistré dans:  
Détails bibliographiques
Auteurs: Wilkinson, Dominic (Auteur) ; Savulescu, Julian (Auteur)
Type de support: Électronique Article
Langue:Anglais
Vérifier la disponibilité: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
En cours de chargement...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publié: Wiley-Blackwell 2014
Dans: Bioethics
Année: 2014, Volume: 28, Numéro: 3, Pages: 127-137
Sujets non-standardisés:B withholding treatment
B intensive care
B Resource Allocation
B Health Care Rationing
B Medical Ethics
Accès en ligne: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Description
Résumé:Ethical analyses, professional guidelines and legal decisions support the equivalence thesis for life-sustaining treatment: if it is ethical to withhold treatment, it would be ethical to withdraw the same treatment. In this paper we explore reasons why the majority of medical professionals disagree with the conclusions of ethical analysis. Resource allocation is considered by clinicians to be a legitimate reason to withhold but not to withdraw intensive care treatment. We analyse five arguments in favour of non-equivalence, and find only relatively weak reasons to restrict rationing to withholding treatment. On the contrary, resource allocation provides a strong argument in favour of equivalence: non-equivalence causes preventable death in critically ill patients. We outline two proposals for increasing equivalence in practice: (1) reduction of the mortality threshold for treatment withdrawal, (2) time-limited trials of intensive care. These strategies would help to move practice towards more rational treatment limitation decisions.
ISSN:1467-8519
Contient:Enthalten in: Bioethics
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01981.x