Christakis N A, Asch D A
Division of General Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Lancet. 1993 Sep 11;342(8872):642-6. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)91759-f.
We have investigated biases in physicians' decisions regarding the form of life support to withdraw from critically ill patients in whom the decision to withdraw has already been made. Using a specially designed instrument that solicited both self-reported preferences and also responses to experimentally varied clinical vignettes, we surveyed 862 American internists, of whom 481 (56%) responded. Physicians do have preferences about the form of life support withdrawn. From most likely to least likely the order is: blood products, haemodialysis, intravenous vasopressors, total parenteral nutrition, antibiotics, mechanical ventilation, tube feedings, and intravenous fluids. Four biases in decision making were also identified. Physicians prefer to withdraw forms of therapy supporting organs that failed for natural rather than iatrogenic reasons, to withdraw recently instituted rather than longstanding interventions, to withdraw forms of therapy resulting in immediate death rather than delayed death, and to withdraw forms of therapy resulting in delayed death when confronted with diagnostic uncertainty. Because these biases may have clinical, social, and ethical consequences counter to patient goals, and because they may affect the underlying decision whether to withdraw life support at all, they may represent impediments to rational and compassionate decision making in critical care.
我们调查了医生在已做出撤掉重症患者生命支持方式决定时所存在的偏见。我们使用一种专门设计的工具,该工具既征求自我报告的偏好,也征集对经过实验性改变的临床病例的反应,我们对862名美国内科医生进行了调查,其中481人(56%)做出了回应。医生们对于撤掉生命支持的方式确实有偏好。从最有可能到最不可能的顺序是:血液制品、血液透析、静脉血管加压药、全胃肠外营养、抗生素、机械通气、管饲和静脉输液。还识别出了决策过程中的四种偏见。医生们更倾向于撤掉支持因自然而非医源性原因衰竭器官的治疗方式,撤掉近期开始而非长期实施的干预措施,撤掉会导致立即死亡而非延迟死亡的治疗方式,以及在面临诊断不确定性时撤掉会导致延迟死亡的治疗方式。由于这些偏见可能会产生与患者目标相悖的临床、社会和伦理后果,并且因为它们可能会影响是否完全撤掉生命支持这一根本决策,所以它们可能是重症监护中理性且富有同情心的决策的障碍。