Thứ Tư, 31 tháng 10, 2012

Art Caplan: "Little Hope of Medical Futility"

In the November 2012 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Art Caplan finds that "the future of futility assessment, as well as downstream actions based on those assessments, looks bleak."  



"Battling to get recognition for futility policies does not hold much promise of resolving the hardest battles at the bedside.  Improving how we communicate about course of care does."  Caplan rightly urges that our energies are better focused on improving clinician-patient communication.  



But even with improved end-of-life communication there will still be intractable conflict.  Maybe in only 5% of the disputes.  But it will remain.  Should clinicians just cave-in to surrogate demands for continued life-sustaining treatment in all these cases?  Notwithstanding the resulting moral distress?  Notwithstanding clinicians' professional integrity?  Notwithstanding their conscience-based objections?  Notwithstanding the risks imposed on other patients turned away from a full ICU?  



Many think that the answer to these questions is, at least sometimes, "no."  Therefore, it is worth developing fair and transparent dispute resolution mechanisms.  Art Caplan is right to observe that the law has not been moving quickly to support such mechanisms.  But neither has the law been moving quickly to prohibit or to constrain them (though, as I recently observed, 2012 witnessed a few more "red light" states).  Consequently, it remains worthwhile to "battle to get recognition for futility policies."


Thứ Ba, 30 tháng 10, 2012

California Health Care Decisions Week



This week, October 28 to November 3, is California Health Care Decisions Week, during which Californians should think about and plan for the types of treatment they would want if they become seriously ill. 



A poll released earlier this year from the California Health Care Foundation found that more than half of Californians said they have not talked with a loved one about the kind of care they want at the end of life. Additionally, nearly 8 in 10 Californians said that if they were seriously ill, they would want to speak with their doctor about end-of-life care, but fewer than 1 in 10 report having had a conversation, including just 13% of those age 65 or older. California Health Care Decisions Week is a great time to begin these conversations and there are many free resources to help. 



For example, the Coalition for Compassionate Care of California is working with The Conversation Project, a recently launched public engagement campaign dedicated to having every person’s end-of-life wishes expressed and respected.  The aim is to support conversations about end-of-life wishes.  To support this effort, The Conversation Project offers a “Conversation Starter Kit” helping families bring this topic into the home and out of the hospital, and asks people to submit their personal stories.








Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science (FIELDS) Program

The Fostering Improvement in End-of-Life Decision Science (FIELDS) Program was launched in 2012 by Dr. Scott Halpern of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania with support from the Otto Haas Charitable Trust. 



The FIELDS Program's core goals are to understand and improve upon the ways in which end-of-life decisions are made.  We believe that end-of-life decisions often are influenced by "choice architecture" - that is, the ways in which choices are presented and the environments in which decisions are made. Rather than passively accepting these influences on choice, we use approaches from psychology, economics, epidemiology, and sociology to design scalable interventions to increase the probabilities that end-of-life choices match the goals of patients, family members, providers, and society.



Thứ Hai, 29 tháng 10, 2012

End-of-Life Matters: Cultural Representations through the Entertainment Arts

In 1988, the Richard and Hinda Rosenthal Foundation established a lecture series at the Institute of Medicine to bring to greater attention some of the critical health policy issues facing our country today.  



The 2012 Rosenthal Lecture will focus on how the language of the entertainment arts informs our cultural understanding of end-of-life care. It will be at 5:00 p.m., on December 12, 2012, at the National Academy of Sciences Building Auditorium, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418.



Through the screening of clips from the film Beginners and television medical dramas, and a live theatrical performance reading from Sophocles’ Philoctetes, the Rosenthal Lecture panelists will explore the various ways the entertainment arts can provide a platform for an engaging and compelling conversation about end-of-life. The panel will approach the conversation through the lens of the patient, the family, the provider, and the community.





Thứ Bảy, 27 tháng 10, 2012

Another Call for Physician Transparency about Incurable Cancer


Many patients who receive chemotherapy for incurable cancers still believe they can beat the disease, a new study in this week's New England Journal of Medicine suggests. The researchers behind the study question if patients are simply in denial or doctors are skirting the truth with their patients' prognoses.

Guidance for Healthcare Ethics Committees



Last Saturday at the ASBH Annual Meeting, I enjoyed the "meet the author" session for Cambridge University Press' new Guidance for Healthcare Ethics Committees.  



This is great little primer on core procedural and substantive issues that ethics committees face.  Thousands of hospitals, long-term care facilities, and others should get copies for their committee members.  



But I want to echo one of Jessica Berg's critical (though overwhelmingly positive and supportive) comments on the book:  it should be supplemented by additional online resources.  Even collecting already-existing resources would be a value.  Not every region has good educational and networking opportunities like those offered in West Virginia and Maryland.  


Thứ Sáu, 26 tháng 10, 2012

Palliative Paternalism



Palliative paternalism.  I really like this term and wish I had coined it.  But a group of UC-San Diego palliative care clinicians beat me to it.  At the March 2013 meeting of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, they will introduce and define "palliative paternalism," and discuss its role in patient care. 



The presenters explain that "autonomy is the current 'gold standard' approach to patient communication and has grown to the point that patient choice dictates care even when the choices are not possible or are medically futile." Furthermore, they observe "a trend among physicians where they avoid making difficult medical decisions by hiding behind the shield of patient autonomy."



The presenters define "palliative paternalism" as "an approach to communication with limited open-ended questions utilizing well-informed, discrete, concrete options during medical discussions in order to reduce confusion and suffering by avoiding futile care. Open-ended questions and unlimited care options may cause more harm in select high-risk patients: patients who are medically naïve or illiterate, have rigid or limited coping skills, belong to certain cultural groups known to mistrust the medical community, or have a history of substance abuse and/or a personality disorder."



Thứ Năm, 25 tháng 10, 2012

Not Only The Doctor's Dilemma: The Complexity of Conscience in Medicine



Faulkner University Law School is hosting an interesting law review symposium tomorrow:  "Not Only The Doctor's Dilemma: The Complexity of Conscience in Medicine."  It will be webcast.  

Thứ Tư, 24 tháng 10, 2012

Freedom of Choice at the End of Life Patients' Rights in a Shifting Legal and Political Landscape

I am excited about this upcoming conference at New York Law School:  "Symposium: Freedom of Choice at the End of Life Patients' Rights in a Shifting Legal and Political Landscape."  



Not Dead Yet just posted a very strong post attacking the biased composition of the presenters.  But I really like the diverse composition, including: legal academics, philosophy academics, judges, palliative care professionals, clergy, state government officials.


Thứ Ba, 23 tháng 10, 2012

Dorsey v. Chicago Mercy Hospital - NIED for Erroneous Declaration of Death



Last Thursday, Chicago parents Sheena Lane and Pink Dorsey filed a lawsuit against Mercy Hospital Thursday alleging that clinicians declared  their 8-year-old son, Jaylen dead when he was actually still alive. The lawsuit is for negligent infliction of emotional distress.  



While not apparently a DCD case, the spontaneous return of heart function does throw some shorter protocols into question.




View more videos at: http://nbcchicago.com.



Thứ Hai, 22 tháng 10, 2012

2013 Revisions to the Texas Futility Law?

The 2013 biannual Texas legislative session is just over two months away.  So, the Texas Hospital Association has released a two-page summary of talking points for the session.  Included, along with with issues like Medicaid and insurance reform, are three paragraphs on the Texas Advance Directives Act:




Texas has addressed end-of-life care issues very comprehensively, and state law includes protections for patients as well as physicians and other providers. Advance directives allow a patient to direct his/her care in the future when the individual is unable to make his/her wishes known. An advance directive applies only when the patient is declared terminally or irreversibly ill and is unable to participate in decision-making.



Over the past several sessions, attempts have been made to nullify the dispute resolution process by requiring “treatment until transfer,” which in some cases means indefinitely. Such a provision destroys the physician patient relationship, increases the risk of frivolous lawsuits and injects a pre-determined government decision into a personal, private situation. 



Hospitals support revisions to strengthen and clarify the law, but a “treat until transfer” provision does neither and is a change that hospitals continue to oppose.



If experience from the 2007, 2009, and 2011 sessions is any guide, there will surely be several controversial bills (with dozens of hours of hearings) directed at improving and at killing Health & Safety Code 166.046. 



Physician Criminally Convicted for Unilateral DNR Order






Yesterday, a Dubai court convicted Dr. Eugen
Adelsmayr of premeditated murder and sentenced him to life in prison after he
gave orders to switch off a patient's life support.  Prosecutors had originally sought a death sentence for the physician.  (
News24)  (The National)





Adelsmayr, chief medic at the Rashid government
hospital intensive care unit, "allowed a quadriplegic patient, Ghulam
Mohammed, to die after (he) shut down his life support system."  
The court said that Adelsmayr
had "issued DNR (Do Not Resuscitate)" orders to the staff and then
"supervised" its implementation.





There have not been many analogous criminal convictions of physicians in the United States.  One of the more notorious ones was that of Stan Naramore.




Chủ Nhật, 21 tháng 10, 2012

Michigan Legislation to Require Disclosure of Medical Futility Policies

In April, I described proposed legislation in Minnesota that would have required hospitals to disclose the existence and content of institutional futility policies.  Along very similar lines, a few days ago, Michigan introduced SB 1343, the Medical Good-Faith Provisions Act.



Basically, the bill would amend the Michigan Public Health code to require: "a health facility or agency that maintains a medical futility policy
that applies to the treatment of a patient from birth to 18 years of age shall,
upon request, provide a copy of that medical futility policy to the patient,
prospective patient, or parent or legal guardian of the patient or prospective patient."








Desmond Watson v. Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital



A year and one-half ago, I blogged about the CCB decision in the Desmond Watson case.  



On Friday, the Robert Cribb published yet another lengthy discussion of end-of-life treatment conflicts in the Toronto Star.  he used Desmond's case -- he is still a patient at Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital --  as a central vehicle to illustrate the issues.

Thứ Sáu, 19 tháng 10, 2012

Minnesota Supreme Court Takes Assisted Suicide Case






The Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of a former nurse convicted of searching out suicidal people in online chat rooms and encouraging them to commit suicide.


William Melchert-Dinkel was convicted in 2011 on two counts of aiding suicide. The Minnesota Court of Appeals in July rejected his argument that he was merely practicing free speech. 






Minnesota Guardians Cannot Consent to Withdrawal of Life Support

Minnesota Guardians cannot order their wards removed from life support.  (Star Tribune)  In an 18-page order, Hennepin County District Judge Jay Quam wrote that although guardians have a strong case to make end-of-life decisions under a state law that grants them power to allow or withhold medical care, it does not specifically allow them to terminate life support. 



Until the state Legislature decides to revisit the issue, only a judge or legally authorized representatives can order life support removed.  In the underlying case, Judge Quam authorized the termination of the ward's life support, but denied the guardian's request for the sole power to make that decision.



UPDATE:  I have posted a copy of the Opinion here.


Thứ Năm, 18 tháng 10, 2012

Nuffield Trust: "Understanding patterns of health and social care at the end of life"

The Nuffield Trust has just published a new Report: "Understanding Patterns of Health and Social Care at the End of Life."  



The Report draws on information from seven different local authority areas across England, comprising a total population of more than three million people. Using this data, the authors were able to describe the uptake and costs of key health and social care services for people in the last 12 months of life.



The researchers found that the use of social care at the end of life varied between conditions (for example people with dementia, falls and stroke used considerably more than those with cancer) and between local authorities, even when adjusted for age and sex. Individuals with the highest social care costs tended to have low average hospital costs.

American Nurses Association Requests Comments on "Active Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide"


The American Nurses Association Department of Nursing Practice
and Policy is requesting public comment on the document "Active Euthanasia
and Assisted Suicide.” The purpose of this draft position statement is to
address both topics to more clearly define what differentiates assisted suicide
from active euthanasia and the nurse’s ethical obligations to the patient and
the profession as outlined in the ANA
Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements
.





ANA is seeking comments of nurses, nursing students, and
stakeholders on this draft position statement. If you are interested in
participating in this review please
 review
the document
 and submit your comments by 5:00pm EDT on November
8, 2012. 




The Real Truth About Death Panels: Comparative Effectiveness Research and the Health Reform Legislation

Distinguished health law professor Eleanor Kinney has published a speech that she delivered, last year, at Oklahoma City University Law School, titled "The Real Truth About Death Panels: Comparative Effectiveness Research and the Health Reform Legislation."  Here is her abstract:



The current debate over health reform has been intense and highly polarizing. In 2009, it was dominated by a brouhaha over death panels and talk of government rationing and domination of health care. I will begin my remarks by addressing the provisions of the health reform legislation that precipitated the talk of death panels and the like. 



Specifically, I will talk about the comparative effectiveness research initiative, which is at the root of the brouhaha over death panels. Then, I will explore the central question of whether comparative effectiveness research really is a contribution to true health reform and can achieve the critical goal of controlling health care costs.


How Much Are You Willing to Pay to Live Longer?

A new Singapore survey shows that people are willing to pay $24,000 a year to relieve severe pain, but only $9,100 to prolong life for another 12 months. 






In presenting the findings at a Lien Centre for Palliative Care conference on Wednesday, Dr Chetna Malhotra said what people value has implications on where government subsidies should go.  She asked: "Does it make sense for the Government to pay for expensive therapies to extend life?"  Based on the findings, she said "subsidies for end-of-life treatments may not be a good use of scarce resources."




Thứ Tư, 17 tháng 10, 2012

Futility at ASBH Meeting this Weekend

I am heading to Washington, DC, this morning, for the ASBH Annual Meeting.  Here are six sessions that I will be sure to attend.



Thursday, 1:00p-2:30p

Top 10 Legal Developments in Bioethics (105)



Friday, 11:30a-12:30p

Law Affinity Group



Friday, 2:45p-3:45p

Futility in the ICU: ACCCM & ATS Guidelines (225) 



Saturday 8:00a-9:00a

ICU and EOL (304)



Saturday, 1:45p-2:45p

HEC Guidance (304)



Sunday, 8:30a-9:30a

Prescribing Hope when Treatments are 'Hopeless' (401)


Thứ Ba, 16 tháng 10, 2012

Olive Goom - British Clinicians Again Fail to Consult Family over End-of-Life Care



Marion Hebbourne

Olive Goom died at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in March 2011. 
Olive's niece, Marion Hebbourne, said that she was only told of the death when she went to visit
her aunt and that she was "shocked" nobody in the family was consulted about Miss Goom being put on a
palliative care plan.  




The hospital said it was "very sorry for the distress caused."  (BBC News)  A statement from the hospital said: "Chelsea and Westminster
Hospital would like to apologize to Marion Hebbourne for failings in the
way that our staff communicated with her in the days leading up to the
death of her aunt Olive Goom in March 2011."




The hospital said it has revised its procedures ollowing an investigation.  The statement said: "Instead of a single tick-box for staff
to confirm that relatives have been involved in discussions about end of
life care, staff now have to specify what was discussed, when and with
whom." 


Thứ Hai, 15 tháng 10, 2012

NHS Rationing – A Neutral Guide



British barrister David Lock, QC has launched a new blog called "NHS Rationing."  The aim of his website is to give independent information and general advice on the issue of rationing of drugs and other treatments within the NHS.



Health Law Institute Annual Report

When I am not speaking or writing about end-of-life issues, I am teaching classes and organizing programming at Hamline University's Health Law Institute.  



For a summary of our various activities and accomplishments in 2011-2012, please take a look at our new annual report.

  

Chủ Nhật, 14 tháng 10, 2012

Flockhart v. Basildon Hospital: Yet Another Unilateral DNR Order in England

John Flockhart was admitted to Basildon Hospital on November 26, 2008, with severe pneumonia.  Dr. Riz Mohamed soon issued a “do not resuscitate order” for Mr Flockhart, on the basis that should he go into cardiac arrest, attempts to resuscitate him would be “futile.”  



Despite guidance suggesting it is appropriate to inform the patient, or his family, neither was done. Later that night Mr Flockhart’s condition deteriorated.  When Mr. Flockhart's was then informed about the order, she begged” the hospital to overturn it.  But clinicians did not attempt to resuscitate Mr. Flockhart, and he died. (Thurrock Gazette)    




Coroner Caroline Beasley-Murray recorded a narrative verdict and highlighted a series of blunders from the hospital.  (Echo)



Thứ Bảy, 13 tháng 10, 2012

India to Allow Passive Euthanasia?

The Law Commission of India has delivered its Report No. 241 to the Government.  In this Report, the Law Commission defends passive euthanasia and proposes authorizing legislation.





The report notes that passive euthanasia "is allowed in many countries [and] shall have legal recognition in our country too subject to certain safeguards."  "A competent adult patient has the right to insist that there should be no invasive medical treatment by way of artificial life sustaining measures /treatment and such decision is binding on the doctors / hospital attending on such patient provided that the doctor is satisfied that the patient has taken an‘informed decision’ based on free exercise of his or her will."



"As regards an incompetent patient . . . the doctor’s or relatives’ decision to withhold or withdraw the medical treatment is not final.  The relatives, next friend, or the doctors concerned / hospital management shall get the clearance from the High Court for withdrawing or withholding the life sustaining treatment. . . .  The High Court shall take a decision after obtaining the opinion of a panel of three medical experts and after ascertaining the wishes of the relatives of the patient."


Missed Opportunity to Avoid a Futility Conflict

Check out minute 12:00 in this PBS film. UCLA ICU physician Ravi Aysola has a critically ill patient. If this patient arrests, the chance that CPR will restore the patient to a functioning level is less than 1%. But the family does not consent to the DNR order. 



I realize that the PBS film captures only a piece of the physician-family interaction. But, unfortunately, it looks like the family does not really understand what they are being asked.



 








Watch Money & Medicine on PBS. See more from Need To Know.

UCLA Health President Feinberg on Futility

UCLA Health System President David Feinberg was part of PBS' recent Money and Medicine film.  At one point, he seems to accurately describe the law on medical futility in California (and most states):


The family wants everything done.  The way the system is set up currently, that spouse, that child, that parent can really demand a full court press, regardless of what the odds are.

Yet, as the PBS program proceeds, we learn that UCLA, through its ethics committee and its "Policy on Withdrawing or Withholding Medically Inappropriate Life Sustaining Treatment," has unilaterally placed a DNAR order on a long-term patient who has no prospect for recovery or meaningful interaction and whose son would not consent to the DNAR order.  


Conversations with Linda Emanuel

Thứ Ba, 9 tháng 10, 2012

Minnesota Advance Directives



Today, on WCCO, on the John Hines show.



For more on Minnesota advance care planning, come to listen to national and regional experts in law, medicine, social work, and other fields.  Hamline University in Saint Paul on November 9, 2012.  More information is available here.

Voicing My Choices - Advance Care Planning for Adolescents



Aging with Dignity, the creator and distributor of the nationally-known "Five Wishes" advance directive, today introduced "Voicing My Choices," the nation's first advance care planning guide specifically designed for adolescents and young adults.



The new document was created based on findings from researchers at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  The multi-year study was directed by Lori Wiener, Head of the Pediatric Psychosocial Support and Research Program in the Pediatric Oncology Branch of the National Cancer Institute.  The study was published today in the journal Pediatrics.



VSED–VRFF: The Barbara Grainger Case

75-year-old Barbara Grainger was diagnosed with motor neurone disease
in 2008.  She decided that, life with the disease would, for her, be intolerable.  Barbara had hoped for a quick and pain-free
death with lethal drugs in Switzerland.  But
the disease progressed so rapidly that she lost her ability to swallow before
her family could finalize arrangements.  (Belfast Telegraph)








So, Barbara instead opted for voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED)
also known as voluntary refusal of food and fluids (VRFF).  Unfortunately, Barbara’s cessation of food and
fluid was not complete, thus prolonging her death for 24 days.  In contrast, most VSED deaths occur within 10 to 14 days
after the patient stops intake of food and fluid. 





Yes, some patients may prefer physician aid-in-dying (PAID).  But VRFF-VSED is, as I have argued, a comfortable
and respected option.  Unfortunately,
many advocates of PAID legalization denigrate the benefits and over-emphasize
the risks of VSED-VRFF to accentuate the need for PAID.  After all, the availability of VSED-VRFF
lessens the need for PAID.  The
availability of multiple options weakens the case that any one option is needed.  





To be sure, PAID has some advantages over
VSED-VRFF, just as VSED-VRFF has some advantages over PAID.  This is preference sensitive medicine.  Proponents of PAID should not push for the
availability of one "exit option" at the expense of another.  Both options should be available.




Thứ Hai, 8 tháng 10, 2012

Mr. L - Clinicians Can Write DNR order over Muslim Family Objections

Several weeks ago, I referred to Mr. L. as a "British Mr. Rasouli."  Similar to the Canadian case, doctors argued it would be unfair to resuscitate Mr L, if his condition worsened.  And Mr. L.'s family said that was against their Muslim faith, which requires that everything to be done to prolong life "until God takes it away."  (BBC)


Today, at the Court of Protection, Mr Justice Moylan said it would be lawful to withhold treatment as it would not prolong life "in any meaningful way."  "It would result in death being characterized by a series of harmful interventions without any realistic prospect of such treatment producing any benefit."




Doctors for the Pennine Acute Hospitals Trust established it was the "overwhelming unanimous medical opinion that it would not be in the patient's best interest to intervene and be resuscitated again."  The medical director said, "We believe he will suffer more pain and sustain further damage to his brain [if resuscitated]." 




Chủ Nhật, 7 tháng 10, 2012

ICU Resource Allocation in the New Millennium - Will We Say "No"?


Here is a new anthology worth checking out:  ICU
Resource Allocation in the New Millennium - Will We Say "No"?
(Springer 2013).





Intensive care medicine is one of the fastest growing services provided
by hospitals and perhaps one of the most expensive.  Yet in response to
the global financial crisis of the last few years, healthcare funding is
slowing or decreasing throughout the world. 





How we manage health care resources in the intensive care unit (ICU) now
and in a future that promises only greater cost constraints is the subject of
this book.  
Leading healthcare experts, including critical care physicians, critical
care nurses, ethicists, and attorneys, provide snapshots of current ICU
resource allocation in 12 developed countries on which other experts then draw
to analyze resource allocation and consumer demand at the level of the global
medical village.  The process is repeated with an eye toward the future
that takes into account initiatives and reforms now underway.





A fictional healthcare plan, the “Fair & Equitable Healthcare Plan,”
is put forth to address weaknesses in existing approaches, and healthcare
experts and ethicists are invited to respond to its often provocative
provisions.  Structured as a dialogue, the book is a great starting point
for serious discussion about the looming issue of ICU healthcare resource
allocation.





Here is the table of contents:




Part I Contrasts in
Global Health Care Resource Allocation


1 Australia: Where Have
We Been? ........................................................ 3


Ian M. Seppelt


2 Brazil: Where Have We
Been? .............................................................. 11


Frederico Bruzzi de
Carvalho, Álvaro Réa Neto,


Rodrigo Ferreira Simões,
and Monica Viegas Andrade


3 Canada: Where Have We
Been? ........................................................... 17


Christopher James Doig


4 Germany: Where Have We
Been? ........................................................ 25


Thomas Kerz


5 India: Where Have We
Been? ............................................................... 33


Farhad Kapadia, Atul P.
Kulkarni, and J.V. Divatia


6 Israel: Where Have We
Been? .............................................................. 39


Eran Segal


7 Italy: Where Have We
Been? ................................................................ 47


Marco Luchetti and
Giuseppe A. Marraro


8 The Netherlands: Where
Have We Been? ........................................... 59


Frank H. Bosch


9 New Zealand: Where
Have We Been? ................................................. 65


Stephen Streat


10 South Africa: Where
Have We Been? .................................................. 75


R. Eric Hodgson and
Timothy C. Hardcastle


11 United Kingdom: Where
Have We Been? ........................................... 89


Anna M. Batchelor


12 United States—Private
Practice: Where Have We Been? .................. 97


John W. Hoyt


13 United
States—Academic Medicine: Where Have We Been? ............ 101


David W. Crippen


14 Australia: Where Are
We Going? ......................................................... 107


Ian M. Seppelt


15 Brazil: Where Are We
Going? .............................................................. 113


Rubens Costa-Filho


16 Canada: Where Are We
Going? ........................................................... 123


Randy S. Wax


17 Germany: Where Are We
Going?......................................................... 131


Thomas Kerz


18 India: Where Are We
Going? ................................................................ 139


Farhad Kapadia and J.V.
Divatia


19 Italy: Where Are We
Going? ................................................................. 145


Marco Luchetti and
Giuseppe A. Marraro


20 The Netherlands:
Where Are We Going? ............................................ 157


Frank H. Bosch


21 New Zealand: Where
Are We Going? .................................................. 161


Stephen Streat


22 South Africa: Where
Are We Going? ................................................... 169


Ross Hofmeyr


23 United Kingdom: Where
Are We Going? ............................................ 177


Andrew Thorniley


24 United States—Private
Practice: Where Are We Going?................... 185


John W. Hoyt


25 United
States—Academic Medicine: Where Are We Going? ............ 189


Mark Mazer


26 Re fl ections on the
Demand for Critical Care in the


Global Medical Village
.......................................................................... 197


Timothy G. Buchman and
Donald W. Chal fi n


27 First Critique of
Buchman and Chal fi n’s Analysis ............................. 209


Leslie P. Scheunemann
and Douglas B. White


28 Second Critique of
Buchman and Chal fi n’s Analysis ......................... 217


Lynn Barkley Burnett


29 Third Critique of
Buchman and Chal fi n’s Analysis ........................... 227


Charles L. Sprung


30 Fourth Critique of
Buchman and Chal fi n’s Analysis ......................... 235


Richard Burrows





Part II The Fair and
Equitable Health Care Act


31 The Fair and
Equitable Health Care Act ............................................. 247


David W. Crippen


32 First Critique of the
Fair and Equitable


Health Care Act
......................................................................................
251


Michael A. Rie and W.
Andrew Kofke


33 Fixing the Foundation
of Critical Care at the End-Stage of Life:


Second Critique of the
Fair and Equitable Health Care Act ............. 261


Jack K. Kilcullen


34 Third Critique of the
Fair and Equitable Health


Care Act
..................................................................................................
277


Leslie M. Whetstine





Part III Legal and
Nursing Viewpoints


35 Medical Judgment
Versus Capitulation ............................................... 287


Gilbert Ross


36 Nursing Aspects of
Inappropriate Patient Care .................................. 293


Melanie S. Smith


Part IV Conclusions


37 Where Is “Universal”
Health Care Headed


in the Global
Village?.............................................................................
299


Michael A. Kuiper and
Steven M. Hollenberg


38 The New Shape of
Intensive Care In the USA..................................... 315


Derek C. Angus


39 Health Care in the
Year 2050 ................................................................ 323


Brian Wowk







Thứ Sáu, 5 tháng 10, 2012

Grace Lee - Appellate Court Denies Stay


I was pleased to see that,
contrary to my earlier prediction, the Appellate Division of the New York
Supreme Court ruled today [Decision and Order in
PDF
] that it would not stay the 
Nassau County trial court's denial of the parent's guardianship petition in the Grace Lee case.





In other words, while the appeal has not yet been briefed, heard, or decided;
the court will not order that the patient be kept alive pending the outcome of that appeal.  
North Shore Hospital can now
remove the ventilator that has been keeping 28-year-old woman alive
against her wishes because of her parents' religious beliefs.  




Sungeun Grace Lee - Parents Refuse To Take Daughter Off Life Support, Despite Her Pleas





It sounds like the parents are pursuing futile court options, not because they really believe that they have any chance of success.  Rather, they are pursuing guardianship to delay the hospital's ability to comply with the patient's (competent) instructions.  



Just as in futility cases, the temporary injunction itself, pending an outcome on the merits, can get the family exactly what they want.  The parents do not need to win their case.  The mere cumbersomeness and slowness of litigation may mean continued treatment for as long as the patient's biological and corporeal existence can be perpetuated.  After the patient's death, the parents can just voluntarily dismiss their case as moot.

  

Thứ Năm, 4 tháng 10, 2012

Parents Ask NY Court to Override Competent Daughter's Decision to Refuse Treatment




She is paralyzed from the neck down, tethered to breathing and feeding tubes.  But Manhattan bank manager Grace Sung Eun Lee still managed to mouth four words Wednesday:  “I want to die.”  Doctors at Long Island's North Shore University Hospital are trying to honor Lee’s wish, but her devout parents believe that removing the tubes is suicide, a sin that would condemn the 28-year-old to hell.  (NY Daily News; Daily Mail)



In late September, Lee’s father asked Nassau County Supreme Court to be appointed guardian.  The judge issued a temporary order, stopping the hospital from removing the feeding tube and respirator.  But on Friday, Judge Thomas Phelan ruled that Grace Lee was competent to refuse treatment.  The Lees appealed.  The Appellate Division reinstated the temporary restraining order until they decide the appeal.




The law, here, is well-settled.  While well-meaning, the parents may not only lose but also be subject to sanctions for bringing a frivolous appeal.




Susan Van Note - Murder via Forged Advance Directive

The criminal case against Liz Van Note about which I wrote three weeks ago, has now been getting worldwide coverage.






Rasouli - Medical Futility and Physician Power


Robert Cribb has a superb and detailed
article on the Rasouli case in 
Friday's Toronto Star.  Among other
interesting observations, Sunnybrook is apparently far more willing to stand up
to surrogates than are other Toronto hospitals.




While Cribb does
not note it, this is borne out by the several recent cases
 in which Sunnybrook (allegedly) acted unilaterally and did not seek consent through the CCB process.  Three cases other than Rasouli are




  1. Man Kee Li

  2. DeGuerre / Wawrzyniak (lawsuit for damages)

  3. DeGuerre / Wawrzyniak (licensure/registration action)




Barry Swadron, who represents a family in another lawsuit against
Sunnybrook
, says:  "I’ve had at least a dozen
people call me over the past two years with similar incidents at Sunnybrook. . . .  Sunnybrook appears to be an island unto itself. The doctors and
staff seem to think they’re not subject to the procedures that govern other
hospitals in Ontario.”






NY Lawsuit Charges Deaths Hastened to Procure Organs



Three years ago, Dr. Hootan Roozrokh was acquitted of hastening a patient's death in order to procure his organs.  I have written about other cases in Pennsylvania, Florida and elsewhere.  Now, there is a new case in New York City.  



Patrick McMahon, a former transplant coordinator,for the New York Organ Donor Network alleges that NYODN pressured hospital staffers to declare patients brain dead so their body parts could be harvested.  



Here is just one example cited in the complaint:  In September 2011, a 19-year-old man injured in a car wreck was admitted to Nassau University Medical Center. He was still trying to breathe and showed signs of brain activity.  But doctors declared him brain dead under pressure from donor-network officials, including Director Michael Goldstein, who allegedly said during a conference call: “This kid is dead, you got that?”

Karen Okada: Resolving Conflict between Surrogate and Advance Directive


A
few weeks ago, I wrote
a post
 about the ongoing
Karen Okada case in Hawaii.  This 95-year-old woman expressed in her 1998
written advance directive not to have her dying “artificially prolonged.”
 Last month, Mrs. Okada suffered the latest in a series of medical
crises.  Her doctors at The Queen’s
Medical Center determined she was beyond recovery and recommended removing
her feeding tube.  But at the same time she documented her wishes,
Mrs. Okada also appointed her brother as her health care proxy.  He insists the feeding tube stay in
place.





I
argued that the hospital should have just complied with the patient's advance
directive without seeking judicial permission.  But now that the case is
pending in court, the court should permit the hospital to comply with the
patient's advance directive contrary to the surrogate's decision.  Compassion & Choices has just filed a
motion seeking to submit an amicus curiae brief arguing this position.  




Thứ Tư, 3 tháng 10, 2012

Pediatric Bioethics Debate Series



Check out this fantastic Pediatric Bioethics Debate Series at Children’s Mercy Bioethics Center.  I am delighted to be a part of it.



Tuesday, October 2, 2012 

Is Neonatal Euthanasia ever Morally Defensible?

Eduard Verhagen, JD, MD

Neonatologist and Clinical Director of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, University Medical Center Groningen, Netherlands

Brian Carter, MD

Professor of Pediatrics, University of Missouri-Kansas City; Bioethics Center and Section of Neonatology, Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics



Tuesday, November 27, 2012 

Is Expanded Newborn Screening Good for Children?

Duane Alexander, MD

Senior Scientific Advisor, Global Maternal and Child Health Research, Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health

Lainie Friedman Ross, MD, PhD

Carolyn and Matthew Bucksbaum Professor of Clinical Medical Ethics; Professor, Departments of Pediatrics, Medicine, and Surgery; Co-Director, Institute for Translational Medicine; Associate Director, MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago



Thursday, November 29, 2012 

Are Slow Codes Sometimes Preferable to Unilateral DNR Orders?

Annie Janvier, BSc, MD, PhD, FRCPC

Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of Montreal; Neonatologist and Clinical Researcher, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, CHU-Sainte Justine Hospital, Montreal, Canada

William Meadow, MD, PhD

Professor of Pediatrics; Co-Section Chief, Neonatology; Director, Neonatology Fellowship Program, University of Chicago



Tuesday, February 5, 2013 

Does the Concept of ‘Medical Futility’ Help Clinicians?

Robert D. Truog, MD

Professor of Medical Ethics, Anesthesiology, and Pediatrics and Director of Clinical Ethics, Harvard Medical School; Executive Director of Institute for Professionalism & Ethical Practice and Senior Associate in Critical Care Medicine, Children’s Hospital, Boston

Robert L. Fine, MD, FACP, FAAHPM

Clinical Director, Office of Clinical Ethics and Palliative Care, Baylor Health Care System

Thaddeus Mason Pope, JD, PhD

Director of Health Law Institute and Professor of Law, Hamline University



Friday, March 15, 2013 

Should Parents be Permitted to Test Children for Adult-Onset Conditions?

Kelly Ormond, MD, CGC

Associate Professor and Director, MS in Human Genetics and Genetic Counseling, Stanford University

Rosamond Rhodes, PhD

Professor of Medical Education and Director of Bioethics Education, Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Professor of Philosophy, The Graduate Center, City University of New York; Professor of Bioethics and Associate Director, Union-Mount Sinai Bioethics Program