Suppr超能文献

代码伦理与伦理准则:在新冠疫情期间进行心肺复苏何时符合伦理?

Ethics of Codes and Codes of Ethics: When Is It Ethical to Provide Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

作者信息

Kopar Piroska K, Brown Douglas E, Turnbull Isaiah R

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO.

出版信息

Ann Surg. 2020 Dec;272(6):930-934. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004318.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Our study aims to provide a paradigm when it is ethical to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Hospitals around the nation are enacting systems to limit CPR in caring for COVID+ patients for a variety of legitimate reasons and based on concepts of medical futility and allocation of scarce resources. No ethical framework, however, has been proposed as a standard to guide care in this crucial matter.

METHODS

Our analysis begins with definitions of ethically relevant terms. We then cycle an illustrative clinical vignette through the mathematically permissible possibilities to account for all conceivable scenarios. Scenarios with ethical tension are examined.

RESULTS

Patients have the negative right to refuse care including CPR, but they do not have the positive right to demand it. Our detailed ethical analysis and recommendations support CPR if and only if 1) CPR is judged medically beneficial, and in line with the patient's and values and goals, 2) allocations or scarce resources follow a just and transparent triage system, and 3) providers are protected from contracting the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

CPR is an intervention like any other, with attendant risks and benefits and with responsibility for the utilization of limited resources. Our ethical analysis advocates for a systematic approach to codes that respects the important ethical considerations in caring for the critically ill and facilitates patient-centered, evidence-based, and fair treatment to all.

摘要

目的

我们的研究旨在提供一种范例,说明在新冠疫情期间对患者实施心肺复苏(CPR)何时符合伦理道德。

总结背景数据

出于各种合理原因,并基于医疗无效性和稀缺资源分配的概念,全国各地的医院正在制定系统,以限制对新冠阳性患者进行心肺复苏。然而,尚未提出道德框架作为指导这一关键问题护理的标准。

方法

我们的分析从对伦理相关术语的定义开始。然后,我们通过数学上允许的可能性循环一个说明性的临床案例,以考虑所有可想象的情况。对存在伦理紧张关系的情况进行了研究。

结果

患者有拒绝包括心肺复苏在内的治疗的消极权利,但他们没有要求进行心肺复苏的积极权利。我们详细的伦理分析和建议支持在以下情况下进行心肺复苏:且仅当1)心肺复苏被判定对医疗有益,且符合患者的价值观和目标;2)稀缺资源的分配遵循公正和透明的分诊系统;3)医护人员受到保护不感染该疾病。

结论

心肺复苏是一种与其他任何干预措施一样的干预手段,伴有相应的风险和益处,并且涉及有限资源的利用责任。我们的伦理分析提倡采用一种系统的方法来制定规范,该方法尊重在照顾重症患者时的重要伦理考量,并促进以患者为中心、基于证据且公平的治疗。

相似文献

4
[Ethical conflicts in emergency medicine].[急诊医学中的伦理冲突]
Anaesthesist. 1997 Apr;46(4):275-81. doi: 10.1007/s001010050401.
5
Do-not-resuscitate order in COVID-19 times: bioethics and professional ethics.COVID-19 时期的不复苏医嘱:生命伦理学与职业道德。
Rev Gaucha Enferm. 2021 Sep 13;42(spe):e20200172. doi: 10.1590/1983-1447.2021.20200172. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

2
Ethics in the Time of Coronavirus: Recommendations in the COVID-19 Pandemic.新冠疫情时代的伦理:COVID-19大流行中的建议
J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Jun;230(6):1114-1118. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.04.004. Epub 2020 Apr 9.
3
Fair Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources in the Time of Covid-19.新冠疫情期间稀缺医疗资源的公平分配
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 21;382(21):2049-2055. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2005114. Epub 2020 Mar 23.
4
Improving Quality of Life in Patients at Risk for Post-Intensive Care Syndrome.改善重症监护后综合征风险患者的生活质量。
Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2018 Nov 26;2(4):359-369. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2018.10.001. eCollection 2018 Dec.
7
The Role of Patients: Shared Decision-Making.患者的角色:共同决策。
Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2017 Aug;50(4):689-708. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2017.03.006. Epub 2017 May 30.

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