Otto Sheila
Alden March Bioethics Institute, Albany, New York, USA.
J Clin Ethics. 2007 Fall;18(3):247-51.
This was a troublesome case, without complete consensus about the right thing to do. It seemed there were arguments on both sides: those who thought that the goal of comfort care without treatment was most consistent with his wishes, versus those who thought the additional testing and treatment might have produced a net benefit in spite of the burdens. Ultimately, the patient was placed in a facility with a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order in effect and a plan for comfort care. He may live a few months or more. We all hope that whatever time he has is spent free of pain and symptoms, and that he is able to live a life of quality consistent with his wishes. The main story line is consistent with actual events; however, there have been changes in terms of gender, disease, and relationships that have been included to protect the anonymity of the patient.
这是一个棘手的病例，对于该做的正确之事没有达成完全一致的意见。似乎双方都有争论：一方认为不进行治疗的舒适护理目标最符合他的意愿，另一方则认为尽管有负担，但额外的检查和治疗可能会带来净收益。最终，患者被安置在一家实施了不要复苏（DNR）医嘱且有舒适护理计划的机构。他可能还能活几个月或更长时间。我们都希望他剩下的时光能免受疼痛和症状困扰，并且能够按照自己的意愿过上有质量的生活。主要故事情节与实际事件相符；然而，为了保护患者的隐私，在性别、疾病和人际关系方面做了一些改动。
