Week 3 Flashcards
Withdrawal of care and futility
When we look at brainstem death as legal death it is the lack of prospect for recovery that has been considered as crucial
In the situation of brainstem death, withdrawal of care would be inevitable- the patient is already legally dead, no treatment can be in their best interests
No obligation to offer medical treatment that you do not believe is in the patients best interests
Treatment that is medically futile that can confer no benefit- is unlikely to be in a patients best interests
A best interests decision
The patients best interests are ultimately what is in question in dilemmas around withdrawal of care
There are several things we need to think about:
-whether the treatment can benefit the patient
-what the patient would have wanted
-the nature of the treatment and the burdens inherent in it
Futility- can this treatment provide benefit
Futility does not mean that successful treatment would be impossible
-if the desired outcome, although possible is overwhelmingly improbable, based on available scientific evidence
Two main arguments:
-if success is that unlikely we cannot justify putting the patient through it (eg painful procedures, insult to dignity)
-and there is no distributive justice to devoting resources to it
Futility in the context of the end for life is most often used when there is no chance of the patient being able to survive outwith an acute medical setting
However it is possible to justify withdrawing other treatments in other contexts or not offering other treatments in other contexts, on futility grounds
-futility is not just used in the context of end of life
-eg patients who are not fit for chemo, DNACPR, even antibiotics for a viral infection
Problems with futility
Legal and medical scholars have argued that futility represents medical paternalism
Researchers have pointed out that doctors have used futility arguments to refuse treatments that they just didn’t want to give
Where is the line in the sand? What is overwhelming, in terms of improbability
What is the objective evidence does not exist
On the other hand:
-a lot of patients would choose to take the antibiotics even though they wouldn’t work
-isn’t deciding on whether a treatment offers benefits fundamental
Best interests- autonomy
In a patient without capacity we should attempt to find out what they would have wanted: values, beliefs
In the case Archie was only 12
Need to consider whether he was competent when he made that statement
-maturity to withstand external influence
-intelligence to project into the future/anticipate consequence
Autonomy, futility, best interests
Patient doesn’t give consent to a treatment that doctors consider to be in best interests
Patients does not wish for a treatment which would not be in their best interests ( here futility feeding into why it is not)
Patient wishes/did wish for a treatment which would not be in their best interests, with futility feeding in to why it is not
Act or omissions
Not issuing a repeat prescription seems very different than disconnecting a ventilator or similar
One is very clearly an omission whereas the other seems more like an action
Omissions are treated differently than actions in the UK law there is no crime in not acting to protecting another (unless there was a duty to do so) whereas actively causing harm is criminal
“The difference between letting someone die and taking active steps to bring about their death has been central to the common law for centuries” Conway 2018
Reinforced in the bland case 1993 where judges ruled that the obligation to act in best interests did not necessarily mean acting to prolong life
This case also established that withdrawing treatment was an omission not an action that led to death- therefore they ruled that withdrawal of care was legal and in the patients best wishes
Attempts to reconcile futility
Recent court judgements on withdrawing care have used futility arguments
-however they have taken a broader approach more patient centred idea of futility
-it is not based solely on the probability of medical success- the overwhelming improbability has been of a recovery to a quality of life that would be tolerable to the patient, based on what we know about them
The nature of the treatment
In weighing Archie’s best interest, judge Hayden ruled
-the intensive ITU treatment was burdensome to Archie despite his inability to perceive pain
-the treatment was injurious to dignity
-the treatment suspended Archies autonomy
What would be acceptable to Archie
Archie’s parents argued that Archie had previously said that he would want to be kept alive on a life support machine as he would not want to leave his mother
However the court appointed guardian and judge felt that when this statement was made Archie could not have anticipated the extent of the intervention or the absence of prospect of recovery
Archie was not considering this situation or the details of what it would actually entail when he made that general statement
-in any case autonomy is not held as outweighing futility or best interests
Outside influence
Several recent cases have involved the same organisation giving legal advice (sometimes inaccurate) to parents- the Christian legal centre
This organisation has a religious fundamentalist position on many medicolegal issues
A judge described one of their key personnel as “fanatical and deluded” and their “malign hand” was “inconsistent with the real interests of the parents case”
Medics involved in their cases have reported that they attempt to break down the trust between relatives and the medical team
Ceilings of care
Another controversial and related area is that of the ‘ceiling of care’ for example do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation orders
Futility arguments are again central here- these orders are very rarely used in a situation where the likelihood of success would be high
Cardiac arrest always carries poor odds of survival and for patients who are frail or have multiple comorbidities the odds of success are very slim indeed
Again the nature of the treatment is relevant- CPR not a dignified process
However for many in the public this is again seen as a statement that someone is not worth saving
This was exacerbated in the Covid pandemic when lots of patients were made DNACPR without discussion sometimes without current clinical evaluation so the record would be present in advance should the situation arise
Legally everyone has the right to be involved in the discussion and made aware of DNACPR, they dont have to consent and cant demand CPR, right to a second opinion
Euthanasia
“ the act of deliberately ending a persons life to relieve suffering”
Voluntary-competent informed patients requests
Involuntary- patient competent but not asked
Non-voluntary- patient not competent
Active- doing an act of commission that leads to death: illegal in the UK, also illegal to assist someone else to commit suicide (suicide act 1961)
Passive- doing an act of omission or withdrawal which leads to death
The ethics of euthanasia
Death is normally considered the ultimate harm
However if someone existence involves suffering their life might pose a greater harm
Therefore in some contexts, ending someone’s life might be an act of beneficence
Eg terminal disease- the person is going to die imminently anyway, why protect their suffering
The ethics of euthanasia: autonomy
Autonomy- self determination: we are allowed to choose how to live why should we not be allowed to choose how to die
Ethics of euthanasia: non maleficence
It’s possible that if we legalised euthanasia/assisted suicide, we might cause inadvertent harms
Perhaps relatives would abuse the system to speed inheritance
People might begin to feel obliged to end their life on receiving a terminal diagnosis etc
Ethics euthanasia justice
It’s unjust that those who have the physical means to end to their own life are able to do so while those whose condition prevents them from doing so are denied the choice
We euthanise animals- why are humans not given same relief
Suicide is not illegal- then why should assisting suicide be illegal
Euthanasia ethics
Euthanasia has no legal status in the UK and is treated as manslaughter or murder depending on circumstances
- in UK law motive is not given weight intent is
-having a good motivation for ending someone’s life does not alter anything
-if you intended to end their life that’s all that matters
‘Physician assisted dying’
Physician assisted dying
From the BMA
“Doctors involvement in measures intentionally designed to end a patients life, covering the situations below’:
-where doctors would prescribe lethal drugs at the voluntary request of an adult patient with capacity who meets defined eligibility criteria to enable that patient to self administer the drugs to end their own life, this is sometimes referred to as physician assisted dying or physician assisted suicide
-where doctors would administer lethal drugs at the voluntary request of an adult patient with capacity, who meets defined eligibility critters with the intention of ending patients life this is often referred to as voluntary euthanasia
The role of the profession
Historically the medical profession have consistently resisted the legalisation of euthanasia or PAD
There is no prima facie obligation that if our society is to allow assisted suicide or euthanasia that this should involve a the medical profession
It was felt such a move would be contrary to the primary goals of medicine would be unacceptable to many doctors and would change the way doctors were seen in society
This changed in 2021 when the BMA reversed its 2020 statement of opposition to legalisation of physician assisted dying and instead adopted a position of neutrality
A communitarian view
Communitarianism is a form of ethics which views the successful flourishing of society as the ultimate ethical goal
It treats the trust as a fundamental ethical currency to allow this happen
It also considers that we live in a delicate ethical ecology where the rights, privileges, and status of certain grousp are in balance with each other
Significant changes can shift the balance within ethical ecologies leading to unforeseen problems
Affects ; protection of the vulnerable, disabled rights, role of the law, religious beliefs, how we see the terminally ill, patient rights, patient autonomy (physician associate dying), rights to life, role of the medical profession
A communitarian view 2
Changes will shift the balance. They will change how we see each other, how we view concepts such as life and death and downstream of that may affect how groups can exercise their rights
It may be that having examined these we feel they will mostly be changed for the better
But we must be very careful to consider the groups- particularly vulnerable groups- who may experience a net negative from any changes we make
The doctrine of double- effect
Physician assisted dying remains illegal in the UK
In reality in palliative situations doctors often give medications that may shorten a patients life
-eg a dose of morphine- may ease pain, may also decrease respiratory drive and hasten death
Isn’t that active euthanasia
Intent is important in UK law
In this case, the morphine has two effects-a good effect (elimination of pain) and a bad effect (the hastening of death)
It is permissible to give the morphine so long as the intent is to achieve the good effect
The same act if your intent was actually to hasten death would be euthanasia