Iserson K V
Arizona Bioethics Program, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 1996 Jul;28(1):51-4. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(96)70139-7.
In emergency medicine, a significant difference rightfully persists between the withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment. The justification for this difference stems part from the nature of emergency medical practice and the unique manner in which clinicians apply many ethical principles. In the usual setting, the decision to withhold further medical treatment is done quietly, often without input from the patients surrogate decisionmaker, whereas withdrawal of ongoing medical treatment can be more obvious and difficult. This situation is reversed in the emergency medicine setting. The withholding of emergency medical treatment is much more problematic than later withdrawal of unwanted or useless interventions. Emergency physicians and prehospital providers often lack vital information about their patients' identities, medical conditions, and wishes. Society also has specific expectations of emergency physicians. Because of the nature of emergency medicine, both in the prehospital and the emergency department settings, the distinction between withdrawal and withholding of medical treatment has never disappeared and is not likely to do so in the future.
在急诊医学中,维持生命的医疗治疗的 withholding 和 withdrawal 之间确实一直存在显著差异。这种差异的合理性部分源于急诊医疗实践的性质以及临床医生应用许多伦理原则的独特方式。在通常情况下,决定 withholding 进一步的医疗治疗是悄然进行的,通常无需患者替代决策者的参与,而 withdrawal 正在进行的医疗治疗可能会更明显且困难。这种情况在急诊医学环境中则相反。急诊医疗治疗的 withholding 比后来 withdrawal 不必要或无用的干预措施问题要大得多。急诊医生和院前急救人员常常缺乏有关患者身份、医疗状况和意愿的关键信息。社会对急诊医生也有特定期望。由于急诊医学的性质,无论是在院前还是急诊科环境中,医疗治疗的 withdrawal 和 withholding 之间的区别从未消失,而且未来也不太可能消失。