Arras J
Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.
Clin Geriatr Med. 1993 Aug;9(3):655-64.
The ethical framework established for most health care decision making should apply to elderly patients in the ED, i.e., the authority to decide should rest either with the competent patient or, in case of incapacity, with the patient's surrogate. Whenever possible, ethical dilemmas in the ED should be prevented from occurring through the judicious use of advance directives crafted in the doctor's office. DNR orders should be based upon the wishes of a competent patient or upon a surrogate's estimation of the patient's values and best interests. Because advanced age is a predictor of poor outcome for most hospitalized elderly patients, physicians should educate themselves about the actual benefits and burdens of CPR in this population and share this information with patients and surrogates. In case physicians determine that CPR would be futile in a strict sense, they have no ethical or legal obligation to administer it, even if requested to do so; however, they have an ethical obligation to inform the patient or family of the reasons for the decision and should offer the family the option of dispute mediation in case of disagreement. If the patient arrives in the ED capable of making decisions but lacking an advance directive, it is the responsibility of physicians and nurses to educate the patient concerning the respective merits and drawbacks of the living will and health care proxy. Except for those elderly patients who lack family or friends or who do not wish to burden others with such decisions, the health care proxy, supplemented perhaps to some extent by oral or written specific directives, appears to be the best approach. Attention to these important problems bearing on the substance and procedures for life and death decision making in the ED should not obscure the manifest injustice of the context in which these decisions are often made. At many inner-city hospitals serving a largely poor and elderly clientele, the ED has become nothing short of a torture chamber for many critically ill elderly persons. An ethical framework for decision making, no matter how urgently needed, will not address the unnecessary pain and confusion of frail elderly patients subjected to an impersonal, overcrowded, and depersonalizing environment.
为大多数医疗决策制定的伦理框架应适用于急诊科的老年患者,即决定权应归有行为能力的患者所有,若患者无行为能力,则归患者的代理人所有。只要有可能,应通过明智地运用在医生办公室制定的预先指示,防止急诊科出现伦理困境。“不要复苏”(DNR)医嘱应基于有行为能力患者的意愿,或基于代理人对患者价值观和最大利益的判断。由于高龄是大多数住院老年患者预后不良的一个预测因素,医生应自行了解针对这一人群进行心肺复苏(CPR)的实际益处和负担,并与患者及其代理人分享这些信息。如果医生确定从严格意义上讲CPR是无效的,那么即使被要求进行,他们也没有伦理或法律义务实施;然而,他们有伦理义务将决策原因告知患者或家属,并且如果出现分歧,应向家属提供争议调解的选项。如果患者到达急诊科时能够做出决策但没有预先指示,医生和护士有责任就生前遗嘱和医疗代理人各自的优缺点对患者进行教育。除了那些没有家人或朋友,或者不想让他人承担此类决策负担的老年患者外,医疗代理人,可能在一定程度上辅以口头或书面的具体指示,似乎是最佳方法。关注这些与急诊科生死决策的实质内容和程序相关的重要问题,不应掩盖这些决策通常所处背景下明显的不公正。在许多主要为贫困和老年患者服务的市中心医院,急诊科对许多重症老年患者来说简直就是一个酷刑室。一个决策的伦理框架,无论多么迫切需要,都无法解决体弱老年患者在冷漠、拥挤和非人性化环境中所遭受的不必要痛苦和困惑。