Making Decisions About the Forgoing of Life-sustaining Therapy

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The incidence of withholding and withdrawal of life support from critically ill patients has increased to the extent that these practices now precede well over half of all deaths in many intensive care units (ICUs). Although the forgoing of life-sustaining therapy is ethically acceptable and clinically desirable in certain instances, and although physicians do not have a responsibility to provide futile care even if a patient or surrogate insists on it, they must be cautious in exercising their influence, if not authority, over patients and surrogates in prompting the withholding and withdrawal of life support. Such caution is particularly indicated because managed care has made patients suspicious of health-care institutions and physicians who are rewarded for restricting access to care. Most patients and surrogates agree with reasonable physician recommendations to forgo life-sustaining therapy. When they do not agree, physicians should not limit care on the basis of their own personal notions of futility, but should instead rely on institutional or multiinstitutional futility policies. Such policies should be developed by health professionals, patients, community leaders, and, when appropriate, participants in managed-care organizations. They should specify which ICU interventions are beneficial, address potential conflicts of interest, and be available to persons who could use such information in selecting the source of their care.