Tostivint Isabelle
Service de néphrologie, Groupe hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris.
Presse Med. 2007 Dec;36(12 Pt 2):1875-81. doi: 10.1016/j.lpm.2007.04.040. Epub 2007 Sep 17.
Although a physician's first ethical duty is to master the relevant techniques, it is not enough for kidney specialists to know the major principles of dialysis and apply them to all patients with kidney failure. Historically a truly ethical promise, dialysis revolutionized the management of chronic kidney disease by sparing life for the time needed to wait for renal transplantation. Constrained by a supply considerably lower than demand, the nephrologists of that time selected patients, treating only the young and relatively healthy. These decisions were probably made jointly with others. Ethical reflections about patient selection at that time thus took place in a different setting, where the supply of dialysis was limited. Today, in a different context, dialysis has not always kept its ethical promises. It is widely available, and its practical contraindications are rare. Nonetheless, we can sometimes doubt its pertinence, as the population on chronic dialysis becomes increasingly elderly and increasingly ill, with comorbidities that contraindicate transplantation. Might dialysis become harmful? Used ill-advisedly, it can hinder the quality of life. There are increasingly more situations in which we may doubt its salutary effects and conclude that it is not always adequate to fulfill the real objective of medicine: providing care, without necessarily curing. We must avoid ethical blindness about this technique. Let us use it well by looking for different types of use for it. To dialyze or not to dialyze, that is not the question. What matters is our mission of care - beyond the quantity of life we must improve its quality, especially at its end. To succeed in providing this care is not to know to how begin, limit, space out or shorten sessions. It requires instead that professionals working in nephrology be trained in palliative care for it is their job to provide care to the very end to these very sick patients, outside of palliative care units, which do not seem to have been created for them or adapted to their needs.
尽管医生的首要伦理职责是掌握相关技术,但对于肾脏专科医生而言,仅仅了解透析的主要原则并将其应用于所有肾衰竭患者是不够的。从历史上看,透析是一项真正符合伦理的承诺,它通过延长等待肾移植所需的时间来挽救生命,从而彻底改变了慢性肾脏病的治疗方式。由于供应远远低于需求,当时的肾病学家挑选患者,只治疗年轻且相对健康的患者。这些决定可能是与其他人共同做出的。因此,当时关于患者选择的伦理思考是在透析供应有限的不同背景下进行的。如今,在不同的背景下,透析并非总能兑现其伦理承诺。透析广泛可得,其实际禁忌症很少。然而,我们有时会怀疑其相关性,因为接受长期透析的人群越来越老龄化且病情越来越严重,伴有移植禁忌症的合并症。透析会变得有害吗?如果使用不当,它可能会妨碍生活质量。越来越多的情况下,我们可能会怀疑其有益效果,并得出结论认为它并不总是足以实现医学的真正目标:提供护理,而不一定是治愈。我们必须避免对这项技术的伦理盲目。让我们通过寻找不同的使用方式来善用它。透析与否,这不是问题所在。重要的是我们的护理使命——除了生命的数量,我们必须提高其质量尤其是在生命末期。要成功提供这种护理,不是要知道如何开始、限制、安排或缩短透析疗程。相反,它要求从事肾脏病学工作的专业人员接受姑息治疗培训,因为他们的工作是在姑息治疗病房之外为这些重病患者提供直至最后一刻的护理,而姑息治疗病房似乎并非为他们设立或适应他们的需求。