Morris A H, East T D, Wallace C J, Orme J, Clemmer T, Weaver L, Thomas F, Dean N, Pearl J, Rasmusson B
Pulmonary Division, LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah 84143.
Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1994:501-5.
Ethical issues related to the use of computerized protocols to control mechanical ventilation of patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) are identical to the ethical issues surrounding the use of any therapy or intervention. Four ethical principles must be considered: nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and distributed justice. The major ethical challenges to computerized protocol use as a specific application of clinical decision support tools are found within the principles of nonmaleficence and of beneficence. The absence of credible outcome data on which ARDS patient survival probabilities with different therapeutic options could be based is a constraint common to most ICU clinical decision making. Clinicians are thus deprived of the knowledge necessary to define benefit and are limited to beneficent intention in clinical decisions. Computerized protocol controlled decision making for the clinical management of mechanical ventilation for ARDS patients is ethically defensible. It is as well supported as most ICU therapy options.
与使用计算机化协议控制急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者的机械通气相关的伦理问题,与围绕任何治疗或干预措施使用的伦理问题相同。必须考虑四项伦理原则:不伤害、有利、自主和分配公正。将计算机化协议用作临床决策支持工具的特定应用时,其面临的主要伦理挑战存在于不伤害原则和有利原则之中。缺乏可靠的结果数据,无法据此确定不同治疗方案下ARDS患者的生存概率,这是大多数重症监护病房(ICU)临床决策中普遍存在 的限制因素。因此,临床医生缺乏定义益处所需的知识,在临床决策中仅限于有益的意图。对于ARDS患者机械通气的临床管理,由计算机化协议控制的决策在伦理上是合理的。它与大多数ICU治疗方案一样得到支持。