Rajagopal Aarabhi S, Champney Thomas H
Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, USA.
Institute for Bioethics and Health Policy, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, USA.
Cureus. 2020 Dec 2;12(12):e11855. doi: 10.7759/cureus.11855.
Physicians must be proficient in and efficient at various lifesaving and life-sustaining procedures. Multiple methods exist to teach these skills to inexperienced medical professionals, ranging from lectures to practical models to live patients. Proficiency and prior knowledge are especially important when novice medical trainees first perform these procedures because of the increased risk of harm in these high-stakes scenarios. To mitigate inherent risks, many medical centers controversially advocate and allow the use of newly deceased patients to practice, teach, and perfect these procedures. As a result, this type of experience facilitates medical training and competency while simultaneously avoiding physical harm to living patients. Nonetheless, it raises numerous ethical and legal considerations, including concerns of damage to the doctor-patient relationship. This manuscript aims to comprehensively review the ethicality of practicing postmortem procedures and its current debate regarding the role and type of consent. This is followed by examining scenarios where the prior patient or postmortem surrogate consent is required for procedures that do not benefit the patient, including organ donation, cadaver donation, and brain tissue donation. Using these scenarios as a framework, best practices for gaining permission to use the newly deceased for medical training purposes are offered. Procedures on deceased patients should always be done under competent supervision in a structured manner, with comprehensive explanations to encourage accountability and professionalism and prevent misuse. Informed consent for all educational procedures must be obtained by individuals separate from the treatment team. However, exceptions to this standard could be made in pediatrics (especially in the neonatal intensive care unit) given the intimate relationship between providers and parents. Depending on the situation, consent should be obtained from the patient and/or their family, with separate documentation provided to create awareness. All relative parties should be consented after receiving appropriate time to process to prevent further emotional compromise. If there are concerns about jeopardizing the family and creating further burdens, they should not be approached.
医生必须精通并高效执行各种救生和维持生命的程序。存在多种方法可将这些技能传授给缺乏经验的医学专业人员,从讲座到实物模型再到活体患者。当新手医学实习生首次执行这些程序时,熟练程度和先验知识尤为重要,因为在这些高风险情况下伤害风险会增加。为了降低固有风险,许多医疗中心颇具争议地主张并允许使用刚去世的患者来练习、教授和完善这些程序。因此,这类经验有助于医学培训和能力提升,同时避免对活体患者造成身体伤害。尽管如此,它引发了众多伦理和法律考量,包括对医患关系受损的担忧。本手稿旨在全面审视实施尸体程序的伦理问题及其当前关于同意的作用和类型的争论。接下来将考察在对患者无益处的程序(包括器官捐赠、尸体捐赠和脑组织捐赠)中需要患者生前或尸体替代同意的情形。以这些情形为框架,提供了获得许可将刚去世者用于医学培训目的的最佳做法。对已故患者进行的程序应始终在有能力的监督下以结构化方式进行,并进行全面解释,以鼓励问责制和专业精神,防止滥用。所有教育程序的知情同意必须由与治疗团队不同的人员获取。然而,鉴于提供者与父母之间的密切关系,在儿科(尤其是新生儿重症监护病房)可能会有此标准的例外情况。根据具体情况,应从患者和/或其家属处获得同意,并提供单独的文件以提高认识。在给予所有相关方适当时间进行处理后应获得他们的同意,以防止进一步的情感伤害。如果担心危及家属并造成进一步负担,则不应与他们接触。