We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2009
For the 17 centuries since Hippocrates called for “the most desperate remedies in desperate cases,” physicians have adhered steadfastly to two cooperative goals: to prolong life and to relieve suffering. ut during the past 50 years, mechanical interventions at the edge of life have thrown those aims into dramatic conflict. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, feeding tubes, and the intensive care unit have postponed physiologic death for many patients who are anencephalic, comatose, or in a persistent vegetative state or prefer death to a life of suffering and pain. Demands from patients' families and cries for social justice have compelled physicians, hospital personnel, and the Supreme Court to analyze concepts long reserved for university philosophers. Although decisions are made daily to withhold and withdraw life support, society is gradually agreeing upon an ethical framework that balances hopeful science with dignified death. This article outlines that ethical framework, reviews recent legal precedents, and suggests practical guidelines for their application.
1. Hippocratic Writings [Chadwick, J, Mann, WN, translators]. New York: Penguin, 1950:207.Google Scholar
2. Paris, JJ, Reardon, FE. Dilemmas in intensive care medicine: an ethical and legal analysis. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 1986;1:75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Guidelines for the determination of death-report of the medical consultants on the diagnosis of death to the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Journal of the American Medical Association 1981;246:2184–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Singer, PA. A review of public policies to procure and distribute kidneys for transplantation. Archives of Internal Medicine 1990;150:523–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Blumstein, JF. Government's role in organ transplantation policy. Journal of Health Politics and Policy Law 1989;14(1)1:5–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Jonsen, AR. What does life support support? Pharos 1987;45:4–7.Google Scholar
7. Bouvia v. Superior Court, 179 Cal. App.3d 1127, 1986.Google Scholar
8. In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10, 355 A.2d 647, 79 ALR3d 205, 1976.Google Scholar
9. Curran, WJ. The Saikewicz decision. New England Journal of Medicine 1978;298:499–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Suber, DG, Tabor, WJ. Withholding of life-sustaining treatment from the terminally ill, incompetent patient: who decides? Part I. Journal of the American Medical Association 1982;248:2250–1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Areen, J. The legal status of consent obtained from families of adult patients to withhold or withdraw treatment. Journal of the American Medical Association 1987;258:229–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Barber v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App.3d 1006, 1983.Google Scholar
13. Curran, WJ. Defining appropriate medical care: providing nutrients and hydration for the dying. New England Journal of Medicine 1985;313:940–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Ruark, JE, Raffin, TA, et al. Initiating and withdrawing life support: principles and practice in adult medicine. New England Journal of Medicine 1988;318:25–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Raffin, TA. Withholding and withdrawing life support. Hospital Practice 1991 03:133–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Bok, S. Personal directions for care at the end of life. New England Journal of Medicine 1976;295:367–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Gilfix, M, Raffin, TA. Withholding or withdrawing extraordinary life support - optimizing rights and limiting liability. Western Journal of Medicine 1984:141:387–94.Google ScholarPubMed
18. Raffin, TA. Value of the living will. Chest 1986;90:444–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Knas, WA, et al. Prognosis in acute organ-system failure. Annals of Surgery 1985;202:685.Google Scholar
20. Raffin, TA, Shurkin, JN, Sinkler, WS. Intensive Care: Facing the Critical Choices. New York: Freeman, 1989.Google Scholar
21. Bedell, SE, Delbanco, TL, Cook, EF, et al. Survival after cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the hospital. New England Journal of Medicine 1983;309:569–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Lo, B, Saika, G, Strull, W, et al. “Do not resuscitate” decisions – a prospective study at three teaching hospitals. Annals of Internal Medicine 1985;145:1115–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Bedell, SE, Pelle, D, Maher, PL, Cleary, PD. Do-not-resuscitate orders for critically ill patients in the hospital -how are they used and what is their impact? Journal of the American Medical Association 1986;256:322–37.Google ScholarPubMed
24. Youngner, SJ, Lewandowski, W, McClish, DK, et al. “Do not resuscitate” orders- incidence and implications in a medical intensive care unit. Journal of the American Medical Association 1985;255:54–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Lipton, HL. Do-not-resuscitate decisions in a community hospital- incidence, implications, and outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association 1986;256:1164–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Batten, HL, Prottas, JM. Kind strangers: the families of organ donors. Health Affairs 1987(summer): 35–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. National Organ Procurement Transplantation Network. Data compiled by the United Network for Organ Sharing. 4 02 1991.Google Scholar
