L'ouvrage aborde des problèmes majeurs de l'éthique médicale actuelle. Il constate que dans le cadre de la santé, pour régler les conflits, on a besoin de recourir à une diplomatie : respectueuse de la loi, l'éthique ne se réfère pas, comme les morales et les religions, à des valeurs transcendantes. S'appuyant sur divers exemples - le sang, les machines - l'auteur montre comment l'éthique médicale affronte des situations dans lesquelles la rationalité ne peut que composer avec des éléments d'ordre symbolique.
Sont abordés également quelques problèmes posés par la robotique et l'informatique : loin de les proscrire, on cherche à leur trouver une juste place à l'intérieur d'un nouvel humanisme.
Since Oregon implemented its Death with Dignity Act, many additional states have followed suit demonstrating a growing understanding and acceptance of aid in dying (AID) processes. Traditionally, the patient has been the one to request and seek this option out. However, as Death with Dignity acts continue to expand, it will impact the role of physicians and bring up questions over whether physicians have the ethical obligation to facilitate a conversation about AID with patients during end of life discussions. Patients have the right to make informed decisions about their health, which implies that physicians have an obligation to discuss with and inform patients of the options that will accomplish the patients’ goals of care. We will argue that physicians have an ethical obligation to inform certain patients about AID (in qualifying states) during end of life care discussions. We will also address what this obligation encompasses and explore guidelines of when and how these conversations should occur and proceed. Earlier guidelines, presented by various palliative care and ethics experts, for proceeding with such conversations have mostly agreed that the discussion of hospice and end of life care with patients should be initiated early and that the individual goals of a patient during the remaining duration of life should be thoroughly examined before discussion of appropriate options. In discussing AID, physicians should never recommend but inform patients about the basics so that they can make an informed decision. If patients express further interest in AID, the physician should open up the dialogue to address the reasoning behind this decision versus other possible treatments to ensure that patients clearly comprehend the process and implications of their decision. Ultimately, any end of life choice should be made by patients with the full capacity to express what they envision for the remaining duration of life and to comprehend the advantages and disadvantages of all the possible options.
Implementing uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death (uDCDD) in the United States could markedly improve supply of donor lungs for patients in need of transplants. Evidence from US pilot programs suggests families support uDCDD, but only if they are asked permission for using invasive organ preservation procedures prior to initiation. However, non-invasive strategies that confine oxygenation to lungs may be applicable to the overwhelming majority of potential uDCDD donors that have airway devices in place as part of standard resuscitation. We propose an ethical framework for lung uDCDD by: (a) initiating post mortem preservation without requiring prior permission to protect the opportunity for donation until an authorized party can be found; (b) using non-invasive strategies that confine oxygenation to lungs; and (c) maintaining strict separation between the healthcare team and the organ preservation team. Attempting uDCDD in this way has great potential to obtain more transplantable lungs while respecting donor autonomy and family wishes, securing public support, and enabling authorized persons to affirm or cease preservation decisions without requiring evidence of prior organ donation intent. It ensures prioritization of life-saving, the opportunity to allow willing donors to donate, and respect for bodily integrity while adhering to current ethical norms.
Death is ubiquitous and inevitable. Many of us have had some experience with death in our personal lives, and as clinicians and researchers, we address death either directly or indirectly, almost every day. Still, there remains significant debate and gaps in knowledge regarding the biology of death, as well as the medical and ethical issues concerning death and dying. This multi-disciplinary issue of the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine is devoted to exploring the major advances and unresolved questions about death. We present 25 articles representing contributions from researchers that examine death at different biological scales and that provide legal, medical, and ethical perspectives on the process of dying.
[Début de l'article]
Despite the popularity, success, and growth of programs of organ donation after the circulatory determination of death (DCDD), a long-standing controversy persists over whether the organ donor is truly dead at the moment physicians declare death, usually following five minutes of circulatory and respiratory arrest. Advocates of the prevailing death determination standard claim that the donor is dead when declared because of permanent cessation of respiration and circulation. Critics of this standard argue that while the cessation of respiration and circulation may be permanent, it may not be irreversible at the moment death is declared because, if cardiopulmonary resuscitation were performed, it might succeed. And because irreversibility of cessation of respiration and circulation is required by both the statute and the biological concept of death, the donor must be alive. Who is correct?
Making two related distinctions clarifies the cause of the disagreement over whether the DCDD donor is dead and points to a possible resolution. First, in a determination of death, there is an important distinction between the permanent and the irreversible cessation of circulation and respiration—two associated phenomena that are often confounded. Second, there is an important distinction between the medical practice standard for death determination, in which physicians certify the permanent cessation of vital functions as sufficient for death declaration, and the underlying biological concept of death that requires the irreversible cessation of vital functions because death, by definition, is an irreversible event.
The organ transplantation enterprise is morally flawed. "Brain-dead" donors are the primary source of solid vital organs, and the transplantation enterprise emphasizes that such donors are dead before organs are removed-or in other words that the dead donor rule is followed. However, individuals meeting standard diagnostic criteria for brain death-unresponsiveness, brainstem areflexia, and apnea-are still living, from a physiological perspective. Therefore, removing vital organs from a heart-beating, mechanically ventilated donor is lethal. But neither donors nor surrogates nor the public in general are typically informed of this obviously relevant information. Therefore, donors or surrogates do not provide valid consent for a lethal medical procedure. This is a serious moral failing on the part of the transplant community. To address this concern, I advocate for accurate and fully transparent communication of information to the public to allow for an informed civic dialogue about the ethics and legality of lethal organ procurement. Furthermore, I advocate that systems be put in place by the transplant community to allow for valid consent for lethal organ procurement.
Brain death, or the determination of death by neurological criteria, has been described as a legal fiction. Legal fictions are devices by which the law treats two analogous things (in this case, biological death and brain death) in the same way so that the law developed for one can also cover the other. Some scholars argue that brain death should be understood as a fiction for two reasons: the way brain death is determined does not actually satisfy legal criteria requiring the permanent cessation of all brain function, and brain death is not consistent with the biological conception of death as involving the irreversible cessation of the functioning of an organism as a whole. Critics counter that the idea that brain death is a legal fiction is deceptive and undemocratic. I will argue that diagnosing brain death as a hidden legal fiction is a helpful way to understand its historical development and current status. For the legal-fictions approach to be ethically justifiable, however, the fact that brain death is a legal fiction not aligned with the standard biological conception of death must be acknowledged and made transparent.
Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death, which occurs when an individual has experienced unexpected cardiac arrest, usually not in a hospital, generates both excitement and concern. On the one hand, uDCD programs have the capacity to significantly increase organ donation rates, with good transplant outcomes-mainly for kidneys, but also for livers and lungs. On the other hand, uDCD raises a number of ethical challenges. In this essay, we focus on an issue that is central to all uDCD protocols: When should we cease resuscitation and shift to organ preservation? Do current uDCD protocols prematurely consider as potential donors patients who could still have some chances of meaningful survival? Can the best interest of patients be fostered once they are considered and treated as potential donors?
When The Ad Hoc Committee of Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death began meeting in 1967, I was a graduate student, with committee member Ralph Potter and committee chair Henry Beecher as my mentors. The question of when to stop life support on a severely compromised patient was not clearly differentiated from the question of when someone was dead. A serious clinical problem arose when physicians realized that a patient's condition was hopeless but life support perpetuated body function. Thus, the committee stated that its first purpose was to deal with the burdens on patients and families as well as on hospitals and on patients needing hospital beds occupied by comatose patients. They intuited the strategy of "defining" these patients as dead, thus legitimating treatment stoppage. They noted that this would also serve a second purpose. Although the dead donor rule had not yet been clearly articulated, they claimed that defining patients as dead would also address controversy over obtaining organs for transplant. My mentors' discussions related to my interest in the intersection between questions primarily of medical fact (When has a human brain irreversibly ceased functioning?) and nonmedical questions of social policy (Should we treat individuals with dead brains and beating hearts as dead humans?). It quickly became clear that most committee members did not appreciate the interplay of these questions.
Since the 1960s, organ procurement policies have relied on the boundary of death-advertised as though it were a factual, value-free, and unobjectionable event-to foster organ donation while minimizing controversy. Death determination, however, involves both discoveries of facts and events and decisions about their meaning (whether the facts and events are relevant to establish a vital status), the latter being subjected to legitimate disagreements requiring deliberation. By revisiting the historical origin of the dead donor rule, including some events that took place in France prior to the report by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death, I want to recall that those who first promoted the DDR did not take into account any scientific rationale to support the new proposed criteria to determine death. Rather, through a process of factual re-semantization, they authorized themselves to decide about the meaning of death in order to implicitly prioritize the interests of organ recipients over those of dying people.
My essay 'Weakening the ethical distinction between euthanasia, palliative opioid use and palliative sedation' has recently generated some critique which I will attempt to address in this response. Regarding the empirical question of whether palliative opioid and sedative use shorten survival time, Schofield et al raise the three concerns that my literature review contains a cherry-picking bias through focusing solely on the palliative care population, that continuous deep palliative sedation falls beyond the scope of routine palliative care, and that my research may contribute to opiophobia and be harmful to palliative care provision globally. Materstvedt argues that euthanasia 'ends' rather than 'relieves' suffering and is not a treatment, and that the arguments in my essay are therefore predicated on a 'category mistake' and are a non-starter. Symons and Giebel both raise the concern that my Kantian and Millian interpretation of the Doctrine of Double Effect is anachronistic, and that when interpreted from the contemporaneous perspective of Aquinas it is a sound ethical principle. Giebel also argues that palliative opioid and sedative use do meet the Doctrine of Double Effect's four criteria on this Thomistic account, and that it does not contradict the Doctrine of the Sanctity of Human Life. In this response I will explore and defend against most of these claims, in doing so clarifying my original argument that the empirical and ethical differences between palliative opioid/sedative use and euthanasia may not be as significant as often believed, thereby advancing the case for euthanasia.
The increasing availability of physician assisted death has opened up a novel means of making donated bodies available for anatomical dissection. This practice has come to the fore in Canada, but is unlikely to be confined to that country as legislation changes in other countries. The ethical considerations raised by this development are placed within the framework of the ethical guidelines on body donation promulgated by the International Federation of Associations of Anatomy (IFAA). The discussion centers on understanding the ethical dimensions of moral complicity, and whether it is accepted or rejected. If rejected it is possible to separate ethical concerns regarding physician assisted death from subsequent use of donated bodies, as long as there is fully informed consent and complete ethical and procedural separation of the two. Openness about the origin of bodies for dissection is essential. Students should be instructed on the nuances of moral complicity, and consideration be given to those with moral doubts about physician assisted death. Two issues are raised in considering whether these moves represent an ethical slippery slope: the attraction represented by obtaining relatively 'high quality' bodies, and the manner in which organ donation following physician assisted death has led to challenges to the dead donor rule. Although body donation raises fewer concerns, the ethical dimensions of the two are similar. The ethical constraints outlined here have the capacity to prevent an ethical slippery slope and constitute a sound basis for addressing an innovative opportunity for anatomists.
The Op-Ed article in the New York Times (November 4th, 2016), “On Assisted Suicide, Going Beyond Do No Harm” by Haider Javed Warraich provides an articulate and timely plea for more widespread availability and application of physician-assisted dying, or “suicide”, as part of end-of-life (EOL) medical care. While this profound intervention should be considered by physicians and others as an option for those able to express their wishes at the EOL, it must be considered in the context of the ethical principles appropriate for all health care interventions and recognized for its limited role in the overall approach to compassionate care for terminally ill people.
[Début de l'article]
The Ethics Subcommittee of AMDA-The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine ("The Society") presents arguments for and against Stopping Eating and Drinking by Advance Directives (SED by AD). SED by AD is a type of advance directive in which a proxy is instructed to stop offering food and fluids to a person when they reach a certain stage of dementia. Although most conversations regarding SED by AD focus on patient autonomy and the right to determine one's care, we propose that the ethical principle of justice-the obligation to treat all individuals equally regardless of race, gender, and physical or cognitive ability-is the decisive principle in this controversy. We also suggest that implementing SED by AD can violate a physician's obligation to beneficence and nonmaleficence. On the other hand, we identify with the families of our patients who see the refusal to follow an advance directive as an injustice of the highest order. In the end, The Society is convinced that no choice can be made here without practicing an injustice: if one refuses to implement SED by AD, one violates the autonomy of the person who drew up the advance directive. If, on the other hand, one refuses food and fluid to a resident who still accepts food, one risks practicing an injustice against that person as they are now. Recognizing that we have the greatest responsibility to our patients as they present to us in the residential setting, The Society recommends against implementing SED by AD in residents who still accept food and fluids, implementing instead, a policy of comfort feeding for those with advanced dementia.
Dans le débat sur la fin de vie qui anime la société française, le citoyen est sommé d’avoir un avis bien tranché et de dire si, oui ou non, il est favorable à l’euthanasie. Mais sommes-nous bien "armés" pour penser la fin de vie ? Connaissons-nous les implications éthiques, les droits du patient et des familles, les dispositions légales autour des obligations des médecins et des soins palliatifs ?
En clarifiant, de façon méthodique et pédagogique, les notions fondamentales de finitude, souffrance, dignité et liberté, Jacques Ricot permet à chacun de mieux comprendre tous les enjeux philosophiques, sociétaux et juridiques de la fin de vie.
Dans cette 2e édition entièrement revue, l’auteur poursuit sa réflexion éthique en proposant plusieurs enseignements autour de la vie et de la mort de Vincent Lambert et en décrivant l’évolution récente du débat sur la légalisation de l’euthanasie.
Medicine aims to relieve patient suffering and cure illness. To relieve suffering is the heart of what doctors do. However, respect for individual autonomy and self-determination are fundamental principles in Western medical ethics and decision-making, often expressed as a desire for control over the timing and manner of death. Patients who become demented often formulate advance euthanasia and assisted suicide directives. Dealing with such request is quite complex because of the specific medical and conflicting ethical questions they raise. Some specific medical and ethical issues arise regarding these substantive requirements when evaluating the euthanasia request of a person suffering from dementia. In jurisdictions that allow euthanasia, the most fundamental prerequisite for a person to make autonomous decisions is capacity. Whether anyone with moderate or severe dementia, and even some with mild dementia, could be deemed to be competent by these criteria is debatable, but during the course of their disease people with dementia sooner or later lose their capacity to make self-determined decisions.
Health professionals have been known to override patients' advance directives. The most ethically problematic instances involve a directive's explicitly forbidding the administration of some life-prolonging treatment like resuscitation or intubation with artificial ventilation. Sometimes the code team is unaware of the directive, but in other instances, the override is done knowingly and intentionally with clinicians later pleading that it was done "in the patient's best interests." This article surveys a twenty-year period extending back to 1997 when ethicists began to question the legitimacy of overriding advance directives despite clinicians believing they had compelling reasons to do so. A legal and ethical analysis of advance directive overrides is provided as no court to date has awarded damages to plaintiffs who alleged their loved one suffered "wrongful life" following a successful life-prolonging intervention. A hypothetical scenario is especially discussed wherein a patient's DNR status is overridden because her cardiac arrest was caused by error whose effects might be reversible. The authors conclude with a strategy for mitigating certain vagaries associated with overriding advance directives, but suggest that until courts provide clinicians with clear guidelines and protections, violations of patients' advance directives are likely to continue.
BACKGROUND: Under Quebec's Act respecting end-of-life care, physicians may refuse to provide medical aid in dying because of personal convictions, also called conscientious objections. Before legalisation, the results of our survey showed that the majority of physicians were in favour of medical aid in dying (76%), but one-third (28%) were not prepared to perform it. After 18 months of legalisation, physicians were refusing far more frequently than the pre-Act survey had anticipated.
AIM: To explore the conscientious objections stated by physicians so as to understand why some of them refuse to get involved in their patients' medical aid in dying requests.
DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: An exploratory qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with 22 physicians who expressed a refusal after they received a request for medical aid in dying. Thematic descriptive analysis was used to analyse physicians' motives for their conscientious objections and the reasons behind it.
RESULTS: The majority of physicians who refused to participate did not oppose medical aid in dying. The reason most often cited is not based on moral and religious grounds. Rather, the emotional burden related to this act and the fear of psychological repercussions were the most expressed motivations for not participating in medical aid in dying.
CONCLUSION: The originality of this research is based on what the actual perception is of doing medical aid in dying as opposed to merely a conceptual assent. Further explorations are required in order to support policy decisions such as access to better emotional supports for providers and interdisciplinary support.
When a child needs surgery, both the surgeon and the anesthesiologist must obtain informed consent from the parents. In theory, each specialist obtains permission for their respective portion of the procedure, with the anesthesiologist only obtaining informed consent for the administration of anesthesia and management in the operating room and recovery room. However, he or she may occasionally realize that the parents have misunderstandings about what the surgery and perioperative course entail. In such cases, he or she must decide whether their role is only to discuss the issues related to anesthesia care or whether he or she should also clarify the range of expected outcomes and the postoperative course after surgery. We present a case in which such a dilemma arose and on which we sought experts in anesthesia and ethics to comment.