• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

为临终患者的顽固性痛苦实施镇静:急性姑息治疗与双重效应原则

Sedation for intractable distress of a dying patient: acute palliative care and the principle of double effect.

作者信息

Krakauer E L, Penson R T, Truog R D, King L A, Chabner B A, Lynch T J

机构信息

Hematology-Oncology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston 02114-2617, USA.

出版信息

Oncologist. 2000;5(1):53-62. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.5-1-53.

DOI:10.1634/theoncologist.5-1-53
PMID:10706650
Abstract

Shortly before his death in 1995, Kenneth B. Schwartz, a cancer patient at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), founded the Kenneth B. Schwartz Center at MGH. The Schwartz Center is a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and advancing compassionate health care delivery, which provides hope to the patient, support to caregivers, and encourages the healing process. The Center sponsors the Schwartz Center Rounds, a monthly multidisciplinary forum where caregivers reflect on important psychosocial issues faced by patients, their families, and their caregivers, and gain insight and support from fellow staff members. The case presented is of a young man dying of recurrent epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, distressed with stridor and severe pain, whose poorly controlled symptoms were successfully treated with an infusion of propofol, titrated to provide effective comfort in the last few hours of the patient's life. The tenet of double effect, which allows aggressive treatment of suffering in spite of foreseeable but unintended consequences, is reviewed. The patient's parents were invited and contributed to the Rounds, providing compelling testimony to the power of the presence of clinicians at the time of death and the importance of open communication about difficult ethical issues.

摘要

1995年,马萨诸塞州总医院(MGH)的癌症患者肯尼斯·B·施瓦茨在去世前不久,在MGH创立了肯尼斯·B·施瓦茨中心。施瓦茨中心是一个非营利组织,致力于支持和推进富有同情心的医疗服务,为患者提供希望,为护理人员提供支持,并促进康复过程。该中心主办施瓦茨中心研讨会,这是一个每月举行的多学科论坛,护理人员在此反思患者、其家人和护理人员所面临的重要社会心理问题,并从其他工作人员那里获得见解和支持。所呈现的病例是一名年轻男子,死于复发性上皮样血管内皮瘤,因喘鸣和剧痛而痛苦不堪,其控制不佳的症状通过输注丙泊酚成功得到治疗,在患者生命的最后几个小时进行滴定以提供有效的舒适感。文中回顾了双重效应原则,即允许不顾可预见但非故意的后果积极治疗痛苦。患者的父母被邀请参加研讨会并发表意见,有力地证明了临床医生在患者死亡时在场的力量以及就棘手的伦理问题进行开放沟通的重要性。

相似文献

1
Sedation for intractable distress of a dying patient: acute palliative care and the principle of double effect.为临终患者的顽固性痛苦实施镇静:急性姑息治疗与双重效应原则
Oncologist. 2000;5(1):53-62. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.5-1-53.
2
A staff dialogue on aggressive palliative treatment demanded by a terminally ill patient: psychosocial issues faced by patients, their families, and caregivers.一场关于绝症患者所要求的积极姑息治疗的员工对话:患者、其家属及护理人员面临的社会心理问题。
Oncologist. 1999;4(1):70-6.
3
Hope.希望。
Oncologist. 2007 Sep;12(9):1105-13. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.12-9-1105.
4
Fear of death.对死亡的恐惧。
Oncologist. 2005 Feb;10(2):160-9. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.10-2-160.
5
Schwartz Center Rounds. A Staff Dialogue on Phase I Trials: Psychosocial Issues Faced by Patients, Their Families, and Caregivers.施瓦茨中心查房。关于一期试验的员工对话:患者、其家属及护理人员面临的社会心理问题。
Oncologist. 1998;3(5):357-364.
6
Breaking bad news: a patient's perspective.告知坏消息:患者视角
Oncologist. 2003;8(6):587-96. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.8-6-587.
7
Sexuality and cancer: conversation comfort zone.性与癌症:谈话舒适区。
Oncologist. 2000;5(4):336-44. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.5-4-336.
8
Cancer as metaphor.作为隐喻的癌症。
Oncologist. 2004;9(6):708-16. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.9-6-708.
9
Teams: communication in multidisciplinary care.团队:多学科护理中的沟通。
Oncologist. 2006 May;11(5):520-6. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.11-5-520.
10
Lost in translation: integrating medical interpreters into the multidisciplinary team.翻译中的迷失:将医学口译员融入多学科团队
Oncologist. 2008 May;13(5):586-92. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0042.

引用本文的文献

1
Bicentre, randomized, parallel-arm, sham-controlled trial of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) in the treatment of palliative care patients with refractory cancer pain.双中心、随机、平行臂、假刺激对照试验,评估经颅直流电刺激(tDCS)治疗难治性癌痛姑息治疗患者的效果。
BMC Palliat Care. 2023 Feb 28;22(1):15. doi: 10.1186/s12904-023-01129-0.
2
What do you mean by "palliative sedation"? : Pre-explicative analyses as preliminary steps towards better definitions.“缓和性镇静”是什么意思?:预先解释性分析作为更好定义的初步步骤。
BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Sep 23;19(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s12904-020-00635-9.
3
Compassionate collaborative care: an integrative review of quality indicators in end-of-life care.
富有同情心的协作护理:终末期关怀质量指标的综合评价。
BMC Palliat Care. 2017 Dec 1;16(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s12904-017-0246-4.
4
End-of-life care in patients with advanced lung cancer.晚期肺癌患者的临终关怀
Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2016 Oct;10(5):455-67. doi: 10.1177/1753465816660925. Epub 2016 Sep 1.
5
Towards a standardised approach for evaluating guidelines and guidance documents on palliative sedation: study protocol.制定评估姑息性镇静指南和指导文件的标准化方法:研究方案。
BMC Palliat Care. 2014 Jul 7;13:34. doi: 10.1186/1472-684X-13-34. eCollection 2014.
6
Pediatric palliative sedation therapy with propofol: recommendations based on experience in children with terminal cancer.儿科姑息性镇静治疗用丙泊酚:基于终末期癌症儿童经验的建议。
J Palliat Med. 2012 Oct;15(10):1082-90. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2011.0500. Epub 2012 Jun 25.
7
Normativity unbound: liminality in palliative care ethics.规范性的解放:缓和医疗伦理中的边缘状态。
Theor Med Bioeth. 2012 Apr;33(2):107-22. doi: 10.1007/s11017-011-9200-2.
8
Ethical decision making with end-of-life care: palliative sedation and withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments.生命终末期关怀的伦理决策:缓和性镇静与停止或撤回生命支持治疗。
Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Oct;85(10):949-54. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0201. Epub 2010 Aug 30.
9
Palliative sedation therapy in a bone marrow transplant unit.骨髓移植病房中的姑息性镇静治疗
Support Care Cancer. 2009 Feb;17(2):107-8. doi: 10.1007/s00520-008-0525-y. Epub 2008 Nov 4.
10
The principle of double effect as a guide for medical decision-making.双重效应原则作为医学决策的指导原则。
Med Health Care Philos. 2008 Dec;11(4):465-73. doi: 10.1007/s11019-008-9128-0. Epub 2008 Mar 11.