Carnevale Franco A, Alexander Eren, Davis Michael, Rennick Janet, Troini Rita
Montreal Children's Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Pediatrics. 2006 Jan;117(1):e48-60. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-0789.
The growing shift toward home care services assumes that "being home is good" and that this is the most desirable option. Although ethical issues in medical decision-making have been examined in numerous contexts, home care decisions for technology-dependent children and the moral dilemmas that this population confronts remain virtually unknown. This study explored the moral dimension of family experience through detailed accounts of life with a child who requires assisted ventilation at home. This study involved an examination of moral phenomena inherent in (1) the individual experiences of the ventilator-assisted child, siblings, and parents and (2) everyday family life as a whole.
A qualitative method based on Richard Zaner's interpretive framework was selected for this study. The population of interest for this study was the families of children who are supported by a ventilator or a positive-pressure device at home. Twelve families (38 family members) were recruited through the Quebec Program for Home Ventilatory Assistance. Children in the study population fell into 4 diagnostic groups: (1) abnormal ventilatory control (eg, central hypoventilation syndrome), (2) neuromuscular disorders, (3) spina bifida, and (4) craniofacial or airway abnormalities resulting in upper airway obstruction. All 4 of these diagnostic groups were included in this study. Among the 12 children recruited, 4 received ventilation via tracheostomies, and 8 received ventilation with face masks. All of the latter received ventilation only at night, except for 1 child, who received ventilation 24 hours a day. Family moral experiences were investigated using semistructured interviews and fieldwork observations conducted in the families' homes.
Data analysis identified 6 principal themes. The themes raised by families whose children received ventilation invasively via a tracheostomy were not systematically different or more distressed than were families of children with face masks. The principal themes were (1) confronting parental responsibility: parental responsibility was described as stressful and sometimes overwhelming. Parents needed to devote extraordinary care and attention to their children's needs. They struggled with the significant emotional strain, physical and psychological dependence of the child, impact on family relationships, living with the daily threat of death, and feeling that there was "no free choice" in the matter: they could not have chosen to let their child die. (2) Seeking normality: all of the families devoted significant efforts toward normalizing their experiences. They created common routines so that their lives could resemble those of "normal" families. These efforts seemed motivated by a fundamental striving for a stable family and home life. This "striving for stability" was sometimes undermined by limitations in family finances, family cohesion, and unpredictability of the child's condition. (3) Conflicting social values: families were offended by the reactions that they faced in their everyday community. They believe that the child's life is devalued, frequently referred to as a life not worth maintaining. They felt like strangers in their own communities, sometimes needing to seclude themselves within their homes. (4) Living in isolation: families reported a deep sense of isolation. In light of the complex medical needs of these children, neither the extended families nor the medical system could support the families' respite needs. (5) What about the voice of the child? The children in this study (patients and siblings) were generally silent when asked to talk about their experience. Some children described their ventilators as good things. They helped them breathe and feel better. Some siblings expressed resentment toward the increased attention that their ventilated sibling was receiving. (6) Questioning the moral order: most families questioned the "moral order" of their lives. They contemplated how "good things" and "bad things" are determined in their world. Parents described their life as a very unfair situation, yet there was nothing that they could do about it. Finally, an overarching phenomenon that best characterizes these families' experiences was identified: daily living with distress and enrichment. Virtually every aspect of the lives of these families was highly complicated and frequently overwhelming. An immediate interpretation of these findings is that families should be fully informed of the demands and hardships that would await them, encouraging parents perhaps to decide otherwise. This would be but a partial reading of the findings, because despite the enormous difficulties described by these families, they also reported deep enrichments and rewarding experiences that they could not imagine living without. Life with a child who requires assisted ventilation at home involves living every day with a complex tension between the distresses and enrichments that arise out of this experience. The conundrum inherent in this situation is that there are no simple means for reconciling this tension. This irreconcilability is particularly stressful for these families. Having their child permanently institutionalized or "disconnected" from ventilation (and life) would eliminate both the distresses and the enrichments. These options are outside the realm of what these families could live with, aside from the 1 family whose child is now permanently hospitalized, at a tremendous cost of guilt to the family.
These findings make important contributions by (1) advancing our understanding of the moral experiences of this group of families; (2) speaking to the larger context of other technology-dependent children who require home care; (3) relating home care experiences to neonatal, critical care, and other hospital services, suggesting that these settings examine their approaches to this population that may impose preventable burdens on the lives of these children and their families; and (4) examining a moral problem with an empirical method. Such problems are typically investigated through conceptual analyses, without directly examining lived experience. These findings advance our thinking about how we ought to care for these children, through a better understanding of what it is like to care for them and the corresponding major distresses and rewarding enrichments. These findings call for an increased sensitization to the needs of this population among staff in critical care, acute, and community settings. Integrated community support services are required to help counter the significant distress endured by these families. Additional research is required to examine the experience of other families who have decided either not to bring home their child who requires ventilation or withdraw ventilation and let the child die.
向家庭护理服务的日益转变假定“在家是好的”,且这是最理想的选择。尽管医疗决策中的伦理问题已在众多背景下得到审视,但对于依赖技术的儿童的家庭护理决策以及这一群体所面临的道德困境却几乎无人知晓。本研究通过详细描述在家中需要辅助通气的儿童的家庭生活,探索了家庭经历的道德层面。本研究涉及对以下两方面所固有的道德现象的考察:(1)使用呼吸机辅助的儿童、其兄弟姐妹及父母的个体经历;(2)作为一个整体的日常家庭生活。
本研究选用了基于理查德·扎纳解释性框架的定性方法。本研究的目标人群是在家中依靠呼吸机或正压设备获得支持的儿童的家庭。通过魁北克家庭通气援助项目招募了12个家庭(38名家庭成员)。研究人群中的儿童分为4个诊断组:(1)通气控制异常(如中枢性低通气综合征);(2)神经肌肉疾病;(3)脊柱裂;(4)导致上气道阻塞的颅面或气道异常。本研究纳入了所有这4个诊断组。在招募的12名儿童中,4名通过气管切开接受通气,8名通过面罩接受通气。后者中除1名儿童每天24小时接受通气外,其他所有儿童仅在夜间接受通气。通过在这些家庭家中进行的半结构化访谈和实地观察来调查家庭的道德经历。
数据分析确定了6个主要主题。通过气管切开接受侵入性通气的儿童的家庭所提出的主题,与使用面罩的儿童的家庭相比,并无系统性差异或更多困扰。主要主题包括:(一)面对父母责任:父母责任被描述为压力巨大,有时甚至难以承受。父母需要对孩子的需求给予格外的照料和关注。他们在巨大的情感压力、孩子的身体和心理依赖、对家庭关系的影响、与每日死亡威胁相伴的生活以及感觉在这件事情上“没有自由选择”中挣扎:他们不能选择让孩子死去。(二)寻求正常化:所有家庭都付出巨大努力以使他们的经历正常化。他们建立了共同的日常惯例,以便他们的生活能与“正常”家庭的生活相似。这些努力似乎源于对稳定的家庭和家庭生活的根本追求。这种“对稳定的追求”有时会因家庭经济状况的限制、家庭凝聚力以及孩子病情的不可预测性而受到破坏。(三)相互冲突的社会价值观:家庭对他们在日常社区中所面临的反应感到被冒犯。他们认为孩子的生命被贬低,经常被说成是不值得维持的生命。他们在自己的社区里感觉像陌生人,有时需要把自己封闭在家里。(四)孤立生活:家庭报告了一种深深的孤立感。鉴于这些孩子复杂的医疗需求,大家庭和医疗系统都无法满足家庭的喘息需求。(五)孩子的声音呢?在本研究中的儿童(患者及兄弟姐妹)在被要求谈论他们的经历时通常沉默不语。一些孩子将他们的呼吸机描述为好东西。呼吸机帮助他们呼吸并感觉更好。一些兄弟姐妹对他们接受通气的兄弟姐妹得到更多关注表示不满。(六)质疑道德秩序:大多数家庭质疑他们生活的“道德秩序”。他们思考在他们的世界里“好事”和“坏事”是如何被界定的。父母将他们的生活描述为非常不公平的状况,但对此他们却无能为力。最后,确定了一个最能概括这些家庭经历的总体现象:在痛苦与充实中日常生活。这些家庭生活的几乎每个方面都高度复杂且常常难以承受。对这些发现的一个直接解读是,应该让家庭充分了解等待他们的要求和艰辛,这或许会促使父母做出其他决定。但这只是对这些发现的部分解读,因为尽管这些家庭描述了巨大的困难,但他们也报告了深刻的充实感和有意义的经历,他们无法想象没有这些经历该如何生活。与在家中需要辅助通气的孩子一起生活,意味着每天都要在这种经历所带来的痛苦与充实之间的复杂张力中生活。这种情况所固有的难题是,没有简单的方法来调和这种张力。这种无法调和对这些家庭来说压力尤其巨大。让他们的孩子长期住院或“断开”通气(及生命支持)会消除痛苦和充实。除了1个孩子现在长期住院的家庭外,这些选择超出了这些家庭所能承受的范围,这给家庭带来了巨大的负罪感。
这些发现做出了重要贡献,包括:(1)增进我们对这组家庭道德经历的理解;(2)涉及其他需要家庭护理的依赖技术的儿童这一更大背景;(3)将家庭护理经历与新生儿护理、重症护理及其他医院服务联系起来,表明这些环境应审视他们对这一人群的做法可能给这些儿童及其家庭的生活带来的可预防负担;(4)用实证方法研究一个道德问题。这类问题通常通过概念分析来调查,而没有直接考察实际经历。这些发现通过更好地理解照顾这些孩子是什么样的以及相应的主要痛苦和有意义的充实,推进了我们对于应该如何照顾这些孩子的思考。这些发现呼吁重症护理、急症和社区环境中的工作人员更加关注这一人群的需求。需要综合的社区支持服务来帮助应对这些家庭所忍受的巨大痛苦。还需要进一步研究来考察其他决定不将需要通气的孩子带回家或撤掉通气让孩子死亡的家庭所经历的情况。