Ethics Consultants' Recommendations for Life-Prolonging Treatment of Patients in a Persistent Vegetative State
Ellen Fox, MD;
Carol Stocking, PhD
JAMA. 1993;270(21):2578-2582.
Abstract
| |
Objective.
—Surprisingly little is known about the content of ethics consultants' recommendations. We chose to study this issue using hypothetical persistent vegetative state (PVS) cases. We addressed four questions: What recommendations do ethics consultants give regarding life-prolonging treatment (LPT) in PVS cases? To what degree is there consensus? What factors influence recommendations? Do recommendations conform to established guidelines?
Design.
—Questionnaire survey. Our questionnaire asked subjects what they would recommend for seven hypothetical vignettes involving a PVS patient that varied with respect to advance directives and family wishes. We also questioned subjects about demographic characteristics, ethics consultation experience, and personal preference for LPT in PVS.
Subjects.
—Attendees at an annual meeting of the Society for Bioethics Consultation (n=154).
Results.
—The response rate was 77%. Eighty-one percent of respondents were ethics committee members and 62% were ethics consultants. There was general agreement among respondents for only one of seven vignettes: in the case of a PVS patient whose advance directive and family agree that LPT be stopped, 93% recommended stopping all LPT. Responses to other vignettes varied considerably. Although patient wishes were an important factor influencing recommendations, none of the respondents adhered invariably to the patient's advance directive. Recommendations were also influenced by family wishes, resource allocation considerations, legal constraints, and personal preference for LPT in PVS. Guidelines we examined were generally too equivocal to be useful for evaluating ethics consultants' recommendations.
Conclusions.
—The finding of wide variability in ethics consultants' recommendations suggests a need to clarify standards for ethics consultation.
(JAMA. 1993;270:2578-2582)
Author Affiliations
From the Center for Clinical Medical Ethics (Drs Fox and Stocking) and the Department of Medicine (Dr Fox), University of Chicago, (III).
Footnotes
Reprint requests to the Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, University of Chicago Hospitals, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 6098, Chicago, IL 60637 (Dr Fox).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
What is happening during case deliberations in clinical ethics committees? A pilot study
Pedersen et al.
J. Med. Ethics 2009;35:147-152.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Withholding life prolonging treatment, and self deception
Sayers and Perera
J. Med. Ethics 2002;28:347-352.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Democratizing the Hospital: Deliberative-Democratic Bioethics
Dzur
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2002;27:177-212.
ABSTRACT
Are Ethics Committee Members Competent to Consult?
Hoffmann et al.
J Law Med Ethics 2000;28:30-40.
Elderly Patients' Preferences for Long-term Life Support
Murphy and Santilli
Arch Fam Med 1998;7:484-488.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Collective Decisions About Medical Futility
Spielman
J Law Med Ethics 1994;22:152-160.
Variations in Recommendations of Ethics Consultants
Moseley and Van McCrary
JAMA 1994;271:1403-1403.
ABSTRACT
|
